# What would keep you in the army?



## Blunt Object (17 Nov 2005)

I was reading a couple of threads, more specificly one about JTF 2 members leaving the forces for better paying jobs in the private security sector because of better pay. THat got me thinking, would you be more incline to serve in the  army longer if the pay was better or if the pay was slightly better and there was a larger budget or just a better budget?


----------



## Cpl.Banks (17 Nov 2005)

Please, if they were in the armed forces at one time that means they had interest in the forces. Seeing as you said yourself that they left the forces for money its quite oblivious that if more money was allocated for better pay they would have probably stayed. Seeing as they are/ were interested in the forces and if they we had the bigger budget to pay the troops more money the likely would not have left. Of course some people are not meant for the CF or they want to spice things up a little and leave.

UBIQUE!!!


----------



## GO!!! (17 Nov 2005)

Cpl.Banks(Cdt.) said:
			
		

> Please, if they were in the armed forces at one time that means they had interest in the forces. Seeing as you said yourself that they left the forces for money its quite oblivious that if more money was allocated for better pay they would have probably stayed. Seeing as they are/ were interested in the forces and if they we had the bigger budget to pay the troops more money the likely would not have left. Of course some people are not meant for the CF or they want to spice things up a little and leave.
> 
> UBIQUE!!!



Interesting quote from someone who is not in the forces.

My experience has been that money is usually not the deciding factor in the reg f. A Cpl makes 50K+ a year, plus allowances etc.

The guys that leave are usually bored. There has been nothing going on for the last couple of years, so they push brooms around the lines and play garatrooper for the NCOs. They they watch reservists get platoon tasks, and jammy goes like CIMIC. So they quit. Ironically, if you are not otherwise employed, you seem to have a better chance of being deployed as a reservist than as a reg f soldier. The carrot is always dangled of some "last minute tasking" like tearing down in Kabul, but in reality it never seems to come through. Just the stick of garrison routine. 

What would keep guys in? The chance to deploy and do the job they trained for, plain and simple. The exodus by the Hill guys does'nt surprise me though - how many people can turn down $1,000 US a day? Government work can't hope to compete with that!


----------



## armyvern (17 Nov 2005)

More 'travel' !!  ;D


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Nov 2005)

A cadets perspective on whether to stay in or to get out..... after 18 years in, I might start taking their advice!!! Or not. BTW, I was in cadets, and I don't recall giving Reg F guys career advice, or questioning their motives for leaving. But that was before the advent of the internet, which has made everybody smarter. 

I have been doing a lot of soul-searching lately over pulling pole at 20 years. The CF took a major nose dive, and to be honest the only thing that kept me in after 10 years was the pension at 20. I was always hoping for things to get better.... but they didn't..... until lately. Once Gen Hillier became CDS, things started to seem to change. Sure, he's Armour Corps at heart, so he gets my vote on that. But once I saw the people that are "on board" and after the last 2 days of PD (professional development) and the peek I got behind the curtain of what's coming down the pike (presentations by the folks in Kingston and Ottawa ..... 5 years ago I probably would have vomitted over the "initiatives" that they had, but there is actually a 'vision'), I'm almost giddy with joy. Recruiting is changing, the direction the CF is taking (sorry boys in blue) which is more "green" than it has been, and I'm not talking hugging a tree, and the possibility of a soldier getting a chance to be a soldier, and not a peacekeeper, or whatever we have morphed into. The future seems so bright I have to wear issue dark-tinted ballistic eyewear.... 

The people in power are actually passionate about changing the run-down jalopy that we were on. Sure it got us from point A to point B, but it's time to trade 'er in for something decent. I think that a lot of the changes that real soldiers/sailors/airmen want (not 8 to 4 civvies-in-uniform) will happen, and people will actually want to come to work. I wish I could convince the guys that are getting out in the not to distant future that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't actually a train bearing down on us (as the last 10-15 years seemed to be). But, sometimes it's hard to believe that the changes that are being made won't be reversed by the next regime. Having said that, look at the crowd near the top, and the faces are somewhat boyish, but hard. Lordy, a fella might actually be able to say that he's a soldier to a civilian, and have that civilian actually look at him with admiration. Imagine that....

So, to answer your question (somewhat), it isn't always about money, and to be honest, I think that a mistake was to pay us too well. A lot of the dead wood we have wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the (relatively) easy money. Nobody ever joined the army to get rich, because you do it for other reasons. Giving people a lot of money, and dropping the standards (not neccesarily in that order), and not making them perform is a recipe for mediocrity. Give us a decent pay, reasonable benefits, good equipment, excellent training and experience, and that's all most soldier's would want. And believe it not, good leadership (Gen Hillier and his team) makes all the difference in the world. Anyone remember Gen Boyle? Gen de Chastelain? Gen Henault? There's probably a reason: they were not there for us when we needed them.

Am I a Gen Hillier cheerleader? Give me CADPAT pom-poms and I will line the parade route, and I will do my little cheer: Give me a Y! Give me a E! Give me a S! What does that spell? YES!!! 

It only makes me wish it happened 10+ years ago....

Al


----------



## RangerRay (17 Nov 2005)

In my case, if there was a militia regiment near my town, I'd still be in.

And if there was legislation here like in other countries that protected reservists' civilian jobs when they were on operations, I'd volunteer for tour too.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Once Gen Hillier became CDS, things started to seem to change. Sure, he's Armour Corps at heart, so he gets my vote on that. But once I saw the people that are "on board" and after the last 2 days of PD (professional development) and the peek I got behind the curtain of what's coming down the pike (presentations by the folks in Kingston and Ottawa ..... 5 years ago I probably would have vomitted over the "initiatives" that they had, but there is actually a 'vision'), I'm almost giddy with joy.



After reading about your optimism Allan, I'm pretty giddy myself  

Are you at liberty to discuss what you've learned in greater detail, or should we simply take what you've already said for what it is, and hope to god you're speaking the inevitable!?


----------



## Haggis (18 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The guys that leave are usually bored. There has been nothing going on for the last couple of years, so they push brooms around the lines and play garatrooper for the NCOs. They they watch reservists get platoon tasks, and jammy goes like CIMIC. So they quit. Ironically, if you are not otherwise employed, you seem to have a better chance of being deployed as a reservist than as a reg f soldier.



A lot of Reservists left the Reserves for the same reason.  No chance to go anywhere or do anything.  Some joined the Reg F and, eventually, wound up in the situation you describe.

But, in the long run, you are right.  Nobody with a lick of fiscal sense joins the CF for money.  It's certainly not a draw in the Reserves either.  

Now to the question at hand:  What would keep me in?

a. another tour on the pointy end (no NSE for me);
b. a shyteload less paperwork on my desk;
c. JATF (If my warranty holds.  I'm too beat up for the Hill)
d. an athletic, thirtysomething strawberry blonde company clerk;

but mostly

e. concerte signs that CF Transformation will lead to a more effective CF with opportunites for the Army (Reg and Res) to do the job they're paid for and do it well.


----------



## Chimo (18 Nov 2005)

Most people are not motivated by money. We are all reasonably well paid. People leave the Forces because of Quality of Life issues, lack of challenge and lack of respect.

The QOL is effected by the frequency of deployment to senseless missions. Happly we seem to be over those, I think most believe the missions we do now are important.

We sometime forget that people joined the army to be challenged. We should have our version of   Ranger course, Jump course, survival course, and gut checking, hard, challenging type course and every young soldier should be given the opportunity to try them on. Adventure training should really be an adventure. Somewhere in the 90s we forgot to have fun in the army. We need to bring that back.

I think the single biggest reason is that many soldiers feel that they and their opinions are not respected or being heard by the C of C. Just because a person is a Pte doesn't make his idea, immediately stupid. This is a leadership challenge. Sometimes when the situation allows, seek advise from subordinates, let them lead, give them the opportunities to make mistakes, get dirty and have fun.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (18 Nov 2005)

Chimo said:
			
		

> I think the single biggest reason is that many soldiers feel that they and their opinions are not respected or being heard by the C of C. Just because a person is a Pte doesn't make his idea, immediately stupid. This is a leadership challenge. Sometimes when the situation allows, seek advise from subordinates, let them lead, give them the opportunities to make mistakes, get dirty and have fun.



In parallel to this comment, a large issue that i know of first hand, is simply the respect due from other members of the Army. I had a close friend leave, simply because the shere disrespect and constant hounding from not 1, but many members, mostly Cpl's and MCpl.'s.

Its one thing to catch c*ck on course, but when it drags over into a unit day in, day out that it becomes a problem. Everybody has their breaking point, but why exploit it for no good reason?

im sure harassment could have been called, but then what? How can one stay in a unit after calling a junior NCO out for harassment, while everyone else just took it? Its much less of a hassle to simply up and look for something better, elsewhere. It may be the Army, but it is an Army comprised of human beings. 

I guess they simply got sick of being muscled around for no good reason, other than the fact that it could be done for the sake of playing Army (little to no training value whatsoever).

My .02


----------



## chrisf (18 Nov 2005)

I would think if nothing else... kit... lots of kit... new toys for over-grown little boys. I know it would keep me interested.


----------



## Gunner (18 Nov 2005)

> I think the single biggest reason is that many soldiers feel that they and their opinions are not respected or being heard by the C of C. Just because a person is a Pte doesn't make his idea, immediately stupid. This is a leadership challenge. Sometimes when the situation allows, seek advise from subordinates, let them lead, give them the opportunities to make mistakes, get dirty and have fun.



Chimo, I have no doubt soldiers feel alienated in this big green machine but I don't agree with your comments about the C of C.   

The previous CLS publically endorsed the "Corporals' Report" as the type of thinking the institution should be encouraging, the Army Journal is available to anyone wanting ot publish a coherent paper (just ask a_majoor), RSMs keep there ears to the ground, and commanders at all levels conduct many "visits to the troops" to ensure communication is happening.   Moreover, if a soldier really wants to talk with someon, they have this website, run under the good graces of Mike Bobbitt.   It provides an opportunity to mix and interact with key members of various trades, ranks, etc.   

For every opinion a soldier may have, there is another soldier making a different recommendation (the load carrying vest ....).   The C of C is human and it will make mistakes but at the same time it has to look at the big picture and do what is best for the greater good.   

Cheers!


----------



## paracowboy (18 Nov 2005)

> What would keep you in the army?


1) high standards, rigidly enforced. 
2) more opportunities to develop a sore right shoulder.
3) hot chicks in CADPAT bikinis.
Any or all of the above.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Nov 2005)

I've been offered 72 virgins elsewhere, maybe if they uped the ante a little.

Oh yea, and start an old fat guy brigade......


----------



## armyvern (18 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> 1) high standards, rigidly enforced.
> 2) more opportunities to develop a sore right shoulder.
> 3) hot chicks in CADPAT bikinis.
> Any or all of the above.


Will a camouflage thong do??


----------



## tykotyko (18 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Will a camouflage thong do??



i'm up for that!  .


----------



## Big Foot (18 Nov 2005)

tykotyko said:
			
		

> i'm up for that!  .


I don't wanna see that... para said hot, and women, and I assume you are neither hot nor female, lol.


----------



## armyvern (18 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> I don't wanna see that... para said hot, and women, and I assume you are neither hot nor female, lol.


EEWWW!! Big Foot...you RMC guys!! I think he was talking about me in a camouflage thong!! Although I suppose your right...para did say hot, and I've always got cold feet so I guess I don't qualify!  >


----------



## Big Foot (18 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> EEWWW!! Big Foot...you RMC guys!! I think he was talking about me in a camouflage thong!! Although I suppose your right...para did say hot, and I've always got cold feet so I guess I don't qualify!  >


Lol, I'm sorry vern, I just couldn't help myself there. It was too good of an opportunity to pass up... But if he was talking about you, I second that thought  Much more appealing than a guy in a camo thong, lol.


----------



## armyvern (18 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Lol, I'm sorry vern, I just couldn't help myself there. It was too good of an opportunity to pass up... But if he was talking about you, I second that thought  Much more appealing than a guy in a camo thong, lol.


You're just sucking up for some gortex aren't ya?? Keep working at it!! You may be swaying me!


----------



## Big Foot (18 Nov 2005)

Hmmm, it might be working, eh? Has anyone ever told you how beautiful your eyes are?


----------



## armyvern (18 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Hmmm, it might be working, eh? Has anyone ever told you how beautiful your eyes are?


And for the bonus....what colour are they??  >


----------



## Big Foot (18 Nov 2005)

I'm gonna try blue... your eyes are such a beautiful shade of blue, lol.


----------



## armyvern (18 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> I'm gonna try blue... your eyes are such a beautiful shade of blue, lol.


 BINGO!!


----------



## Big Foot (18 Nov 2005)

Yes! Success!  ;D


----------



## ZipperHead (18 Nov 2005)

> Are you at liberty to discuss what you've learned in greater detail, or should we simply take what you've already said for what it is, and hope to god you're speaking the inevitable!?



If I get some time later, I can go into some form of detail about what was presented, but right now I am busy with other stuff (psssst, don't tell anybody, but I'm at work.... :-X )



> We sometime forget that people joined the army to be challenged. We should have our version of  Ranger course, Jump course, survival course, and gut checking, hard, challenging type course and every young soldier should be given the opportunity to try them on. Adventure training should really be an adventure. Somewhere in the 90s we forgot to have fun in the army. We need to bring that back.



This is an excellent point. It SHOULD be fun to be in the army. Soul sucking paperwork, and pushing a broom around an empty hangar floor don't exactly count as fun, unless you are a masochist, or are easily amused. I could probably count on one hand how many crewmen that I know that have gone on even Basic Para in the last 5-10 years. I know that money is tight, and the tempo is high, but what with the Whole Fleet Management (I am not a huge fan of this concept, and know very little about it, so I will refrain from commenting further) and other issues, the time spent in the past working on maintaining the equipment should now be spent on training. The problem is that too much time is spent on what amount to trivial things, rather than fundamental training. When officers spend their time staffing the same memo up and down the chain of command for a week or better because of minor spelling, errors, etc, it shows that there is something wrong. When NCO's are tasked with carrying the admin load due to what I just mentioned, that means they can't spend time conducting/planning training. And, unless the NCO's on the floors take the reins (which some units won't allow, due to micromanaging or indifferent officers/NCO's) and aren't stopped in their tracks by doing lame busy-work, nothing gets accomplished. Plus, when the younger people aren't wanting/willing to doing some of the harder training because they aren't accustomed to the warrior mentality, where sometimes you have to suffer for your occupation (working outside 0800-1600hrs structure, being away from home for long periods, last minute changes, etc), and whinge about having to do anything. And the soldiers lose out, because they aren't interested in being a soldier anymore. And the ones that sometimes stay on are the ones you don't want: unwilling to do any more than neccesary because they are only here for the paycheck. And the cycle repeats.....

Again, some of the things I have heard/seen in the last while make me hopeful, as the CDS' focus is on making an 'effective' CF, as opposed to an 'efficient' CF (which are sometimes mutually exclusive). I will elaborate when I get a chance.

Al


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Am I a Gen Hillier cheerleader? Give me CADPAT pom-poms and I will line the parade route, and I will do my little cheer: Give me a Y! Give me a E! Give me a S! What does that spell? YES!!!



Mmmmmm - Strat NCOs doing cheerleader dances - lets hope they are in cbts and not those little cheerleader skirts <shudders>


----------



## bridges (18 Nov 2005)

Sounds like some of you would be more happy working in a strip club than in the army!   

For my part, I'm staying in for a little longer now, just to see if Gen Hillier's plan actually works.  If it doesn't "take", I'm gone - I have spent the last 17 years coping with the bureaucracy of my own dept, and don't want to spend 17 more.  It just isn't fun.   

Oh, and a pension would be a nice touch as well...  we (and I mean the Res F here) are the only govt employees without one.  They keep saying it's coming, but then they keep delaying it.   There are a whole pile of senior reservists delaying their release until it comes out - then we will see some attrition, I'm sure.   It's not the money, so much as the message that we just don't matter enough.


----------



## tykotyko (18 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> I don't wanna see that... para said hot, and women, and I assume you are neither hot nor female, lol.



sorry bout that, lol i dont want to scare the enemy with a cam thong, but if the ~hot~ ladies wore them, then id be up for that


----------



## wack-in-iraq (19 Nov 2005)

Money is not an issue to me. In my decision to come to Iraq it was not a deciding factor, in fact if the truth be told i am paid quite poorly by Iraq contractor standards. I took the job so i could go do something i know i will never be able to do in the CF, have a hell of a lot of action. The sad fact of my 6 year army career is that the highlights were battleschool and riding my dirtbike on base, not really something that you expect when you join an infantry Bn. If the CF had told me i was taking a pay cut but it was to pay for some better units, better tours and so on i would gladly take it. If you joined the army for the money you are an idiot and you are taking up space on courses. If anything i say we cut pay a bit so we arent attracting these sorts.

There are a lot of reasons why i got out, and they have been beaten to death on this forum, we all know what they are, and some are my own personal reasons, which a lot of you wouldnt agree with. One thing i have realised being here is that the Canadian army isnt half as bad as most people like to think though. there may be a lot of bullshit to wade through, but the fact is it is a pretty easy (too easy) job, they take really good care of you, and the friends you make are well worth the time. While im not putting too much faith in this new unit coming out, i think that it if it does come around we will see a ton of positive changes all over the army.


----------



## reccecrewman (20 Nov 2005)

A nice re-signing bonus would be a good incentive.  (Nothing ridiculous, $5,000 for a second BE, $10,000 for an IE, with the condition you have to re-pay it if you break contract)  If this is asking too much, not paying Federal Tax would also do the trick.  ;D


----------



## wack-in-iraq (20 Nov 2005)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> A nice re-signing bonus would be a good incentive.   (Nothing ridiculous, $5,000 for a second BE, $10,000 for an IE, with the condition you have to re-pay it if you break contract)   If this is asking too much, not paying Federal Tax would also do the trick.   ;D



agreed, a resigning bonus would be great !  is it true that CF members are no longer paying tax on overseas pay?


----------



## Gunner (20 Nov 2005)

> is it true that CF members are no longer paying tax on overseas pay?



Only on riskier missions.  Camp Mirage does not get tax free status but TFA does.


----------



## Popurhedoff (20 Nov 2005)

Whats keeping me in?  Pride and Dedication, it has been and will be... nothing more is needed.


----------



## Jay4th (20 Nov 2005)

I am totally on board with Allan.  We were being led down the garden path and fed a load of crap all through the nineties.  I have high hopes for the Army Gen. H envisions, but I have been let down before. I feel the "new unit" has the potential for greatness as well.  Even if some of the bright lights in the future fade out, I have to be a someone who tried to make it work. As one who left the Army once, it is hard to live as a bitter ex-soldier. We are all our own career manager in part. Find the direction you want to go and pester the chain til you are moving that way.  Enough preaching from me. Most members won't believe these optimistic words are even mine.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> I am totally on board with Allan.   We were being led down the garden path and fed a load of crap all through the nineties.   I have high hopes for the Army Gen. H envisions, but I have been let down before. I feel the "new unit" has the potential for greatness as well.   Even if some of the bright lights in the future fade out, I have to be a someone who tried to make it work.


I find, in a way, that the "New" Units being created, are all hype.....in that they are just doing what 'old' units used to do, but have stopped due to fiscal restraints and lack of direction in policy from above.


----------



## ZipperHead (20 Nov 2005)

I have my doubts as to why the "new" units are being created. Because I am cynical and jaded, I would say that they are created to give people a place to work (if you catch my drift ***cough**** top-heavy military ****cough*****). 

It seems that everything old is new again, and if they are doing it to fulfill a requirement that can't be met by the existing ORBAT, fair enough. But..... We are stretched thin as it is, and I would much prefer to see the line units overflowing with troops, and THEN standing up these units. Thinning out existing units is going to create too much strain on them (IMO). If there are too many higher-ups floating around in the various headquarters, they should feel free to fill in at the various units (even in a "lower" position) while the people who need career training can get it.

If this is an attempt at raising morale (a la bringing back the Airborne Regt), I think it's a good idea in principle, but at what price??? We have been doing more with less for so long, that while we are good at it, I think it is what is starting to bring people down. Again, I say bring the core units up to at least their peacetime capacity (higher actually, as the people that they take out for the new units will deplete them to an unacceptable level, particularly with the types of people that they will want for these units), and then start-up the units. I just realized that I haven't done enough research to know if I am advocating what they are doing, but based on rumour-net (never a good basis for research) it sounds like full steam ahead........

Al


----------



## casing (21 Nov 2005)

Before I get to a slightly off-topic rant about some of the things people are saying in this thread, I'll give my own response to the original query.  Factors that keep me in the military: constantly improving quality of life (including family time, personal time, and pay), the opportunity to do a different and interesting job every few years, and opportunity to continually broaden my experience and knowledge.  As everyone knows, these things exist in today's CF, but not at a perfect state.

Now to the rant: A lot of the people commenting in this thread claim that money plays a rather small factor in their decision to continue their military career.  I believe that as well, to a certain point, but too many people here are also advocating a pay cut.  You folks should open your eyes a little bit and see things on a broader perspective. I joined the military because it was a passion and was always a path I wanted to follow.  But why didn't I join sooner?  Because personal circumstances precluded me from being able to survive on less money than the modern pay scales allow for.  It's none of your business what those circumstances are, but they aren't illegal, unusual or even uncommon and I wouldn't doubt that there are plenty of people in a similar situation.  Decent pay should be an enabling factor, not a deciding factor.

Decent pay attracting undesirables?  It is the responsibility of the recruiters to deal with that aspect and weed those types out.  That failing, BIQ, IAP, and BOTP should help.  The pay helps to attract people into at least looking into having a career in the military.  I don't want to be paid less just to, possibly, keep undesirables from applying.

As someone who worked in private industry for 14 years before joining the regs, I can say that the excitement and challenge most of you so desire and find missing in today's CF is even more lacking outside of the military, with few exceptions.  The grass is always greener on the other side.


----------



## ZipperHead (21 Nov 2005)

> Decent pay attracting undesirables?  It is the responsibility of the recruiters to deal with that aspect and weed those types out.  That failing, BIQ, IAP, and BOTP should help.  The pay helps to attract people into at least looking into having a career in the military.  I don't want to be paid less just to, possibly, keep undesirables from applying.



Recruiters are looking too hard for anybody to join to let mercenary tendencies rule out someone's employment. 



> But why didn't I join sooner?  Because personal circumstances precluded me from being able to survive on less money than the modern pay scales allow for.  *It's none of your business* what those circumstances are, but they aren't illegal, unusual or even uncommon and I wouldn't doubt that there are plenty of people in a similar situation



Newsflash: what I highlighted in your quote is probably what someone would say to a recruiter when pressed on if they are joining for the money, thereby negating your first argument.

Just because you come in with a different perspective (which we can all appreciate) doesn't give you the right to criticize what some people with a great deal more of experience state: some people stick around solely for the money, not the adventure, and certainly not to be a professional soldier, sailor or airman. By professional I mean someone that is dedicated to the profession of arms, and not making the rent cheque. Yes, we need to pay people a decent wage, but when the pay disparity between a Cpl and a Sgt is so minimal (the difference per month for a Cpl 4 and a basic Sgt is only $372, or $12 per day), we encourage mediocrity and complacency. The Cpl rank is the one that all the commissions and programs focussed on, from my understanding. So of course they pumped that one up, without considering things such as what I mentioned. And don't get me started on the pay difference between officers and NCM's (suffice it to say that a Captain makes more than I do, by a good $500 per month, and an average Capt reaches that rank far faster than a soldier makes it to Sgt). 

I lived through the shitty pay (and many before me lived through far worse), and while many of the programs are appreciated, and I do take advantage of them, the fact of the matter is that salary is a HUGE percentage of our budget, and so it would seem that we a victim of our own success. The more they pay us, the less toys we can buy. 

I would be happy IF we could get rid of the 8 to 4 soldiers, who are NOT professionals, but all the glorious programs and initiatives (human rights, harrassment, etc) brought in over the years have effectively made us a unionized force. Trying to get somebody who is an underperformer out is like trying to get a bulldog off a meat truck. 

So, if your big educated brain can find a way to only keep in people who are willing to give 100%, I would be willing to advocate pay raises all around, but if it means pulling away an incentive for all the deadwood so they get their sorry asses off the gravy train, I WOULD advocate a pay reduction. I'll be waiting for your proposal (but I won't be holding my breath......)

Al


----------



## TCBF (21 Nov 2005)

"Trying to get somebody who is an underperformer out is like trying to get a bulldog off a meat truck."- Allan Loumalla.

- Al, you are truly an inspiration.   Coming from Thunder Bay, I am no stranger to classic lines from Finlanders, but you have again raised the bar.   As soon as I finish banging this out with one finger, I am gonna give your plus sign a pounding.

I know a guy who spent part of his early life living in a Sally Ann clothing donation box, and joined the CF for 'three hots and a cot'.   In his time, he out-soldiered a lot of his more refined and expensively recruited peers.   HR (human relations) as a science is like the military as a science.   In the theoretical plane, they are sciences like astronomy, after first contact, they are more like astrology.

Tom

Edit: El tougho shitto Al, your plus sign is gone! - Tom


----------



## ZipperHead (21 Nov 2005)

Tom:  :-[

Coming from you, that is like praise from Caesar.

I am fairly certain that some of the finest soldiers that ever put on a uniform were down and out at some point in their life. There should be no discounting of someone who is capable of getting their hands dirty and is looking for some adventure. If they come with a head full of brains (and hopefully the common sense to go with) all the better. People who are more worried about how much money they should be making aren't probably going to get far, because there are almost always better and easier ways to make a buck.

We also have to keep in mind that this isn't neccesarily a new phenomenon: my buddy's dad got in just as Korea was winding down, and he had an expression for the military: Mechanized welfare. People couldn't get a real job, so they joined the army. It has always happened, and always will. But the difference between then and now is the policies in place. Then, if you didn't do your job, there was a burly Cpl to sort you out, and after you were done picking up your teeth with broken fingers, you got to work. Now, you have to BEG people to do their job. True story (well, true enough for army purposes): at 1 Field Amb, a MCpl I know told me that he was told he had to say "please" when getting "soldiers" to sweep the hangar floor. As in "Would you please sweep the hangar floor" . Un-fooking-believable. And getting somebody punted now requires an officer to have an open line to the JAG office (no wonder why we have so many of them now.....). And lord help you if somebody didn't dot an "i" or cross a "t" on an assessment from 4 years back..... The humanity. I suspect soon that every supervisor will be issued a JAG as a fire-team partner, just so that anything said or done can be witnessed, notarized, filed in triplicate, etc,etc.

Al


----------



## 762gunner (21 Nov 2005)

A date with an army chick.  Got everything else I need.   ;D


----------



## casing (21 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Recruiters are looking too hard for anybody to join to let mercenary tendencies rule out someone's employment.



There is obviously some truth to that statement.   However, I believe it is in the minority of instances.   I doubt that kincanucks is out there dragging every Joe Blow of the street, irrigardless of their suitability.   The recruiting forum is strewn with posts that contradict your claim.



> Newsflash: what I highlighted in your quote is probably what someone would say to a recruiter when pressed on if they are joining for the money, thereby negating your first argument.



Only if you're making assumptions.   I said those circumstances are none of *your* business.   If someone wants to tell that to a recruiter then good luck getting an offer.



> Just because you come in with a different perspective (which we can all appreciate) doesn't give you the right to criticize what some people with a great deal more of experience state



Why not?   Just because you have considerably more experience in the military than I do does not mean you have the same claim when it comes to overall life experience.   Or is it just that you don't like opposing views?



> : some people stick around solely for the money



I never disputed that.   There are obviously problems that need to be fixed, but for people in the stage of their career where they are sticking around for the money, making less wouldn't matter.   I think you are an example of that, Al.   You made a recent post in another thread where you said you stuck around after 10 years because of the 20-year pension.   Doesn't that point in your career qualify as "lived through shitty pay"?



> The more they pay us, the less toys we can buy.



I'm not an accountant, but this claim doesn't sit right with me.   I would think that the budget is set on estimations of expenditures--salary is one of those.   Are you saying that the budget doesn't change no matter the level of expenditures of certain things?   Don't take this as a sarcastic jibe.   I really don't know, that's why I'm asking.



> So, if your big educated brain can find a way to only keep in people who are willing to give 100%, I would be willing to advocate pay raises all around, but if it means pulling away an incentive for all the deadwood so they get their sorry asses off the gravy train, I WOULD advocate a pay reduction. I'll be waiting for your proposal (but I won't be holding my breath......)



Thanks for the challenge, Al.   However, you know as well as I that there isn't a single solution.   But, if you think that dropping pay is going to get rid of the deadwood, then you are living in a dreamland.   It is more likely that the troops "willing to give 100%" will ditch than the deadwood.   Dropping pay would just be the final straw for the 100% givers.   Afterall, the deadwood would then have to go out find themselves another job.   That means work and effort.   Goes against the deadwood philosophy, don't you think?

_Edit: Excuse me... the reference above about the 10 yrs/20 pension thing is actually in this thread._


----------



## ZipperHead (21 Nov 2005)

> Why not?  Just because you have considerably more experience in the military than I do does not mean you have the same claim when it comes to overall life experience.  Or is it just that you don't like opposing views?



I like opposing viewpoints, but not when they are stated in the fashion that you did. Saying "Open your eyes" to people who have gone through all of this shite with them wide open is a little much, don't you think. 

Whatever your reasons are for joining, fair enough. To state that you didn't join before, due to personal reasons, without getting into them, just sounds like that the money wasn't good enough, so you waited until it was. I know a lot of people that joined in less than desirable circumstances, and they made out OK. They weren't eating filet mignon every night, and washing it down with Cristal, but they (and their families) survived. 

I think that the majority of people with any amount of time in have enough friends on the "outside" to know that the grass isn't always greener. That's what keeps a lot of people in. 

I think that me staying in for my pension is a right that I earned, and if you think that makes me hypocritical , good on you. I know that I have never underperformed (at least to the CF standard..... I know now that I didn't perform to my idea of 100% all the time, but that is my cross to bear), and I was always ready to "ruck up and move out" when the order was given.

I suppose when you have walked a mile in my shoes, you will understand what I am on about. It's good that you have always wanted to join, and did something in the real world beforehand, so you at least have a point of reference. It's something I don't really have, but that isn't to say that I haven't been exposed to what goes on outside the main gate. But, when you see what I see, day in day out, that is, people who are in it just for the pay, and have no desire to actually be a soldier, well, you will be able to pass judgment then. When you finally encounter, as I have, people who say "I don't want to go to war [and do what they have been paid to do for their whole careers]!!! I just joined for a paycheck!!!!!" Well, sunshine, then it never is a good day to die for the Crown, is it??? When it comes down to brass tacks, you train your whole career to possibly one day make the supreme sacrifice for your country. If you can't live with that eventuality, then the CF isn't for you. Not much of a recruiting tag line, but I guess the truth rarely is.

Al


----------



## armyvern (21 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> And getting somebody punted now requires an officer to have an open line to the JAG office (no wonder why we have so many of them now.....). And lord help you if somebody didn't dot an "i" or cross a "t" on an assessment from 4 years back..... The humanity.


Ahhh this is true enough...but I did manage to punt one last summer Al. It took some time and a hell of a lot of work though, plus a couple of trips to HQ. I'll PM you his name....you should recognize it!!


----------



## casing (22 Nov 2005)

I'm sorry you took "open your eyes" as an insult.  If you actually take the entire phrase of "open your eyes a little bit and _see things on a broader perspective_", you might realize that it wasn't intended the way you took it.

Anyway.... You and the other posters haved raised good, valid points in this thread.  You might not believe this, but I do completely understand your point of view.  I just don't completely see eye to eye with you on a couple of your recommendations.


----------



## childs56 (22 Nov 2005)

-More and better training all the time, not just before work ups for deployment. 

-Less politics at the lower level of the troops,

-No more long 20-25 year contracts. Make a overall contract as the Reserves have for a "indefinite period" of service up until retirement, 
Then Offer full time contracts in 3-5 year stints. In order to renew your contract you have to prove that you have done a good fair job as indicated on your PER.

-Overhaul the Per/Pdr programme so that it has a full effect on the overall situation. Eliminate the buddy buddy system that we see all to often. The people whom write them should not be directly employed with you.

-offer incentives for highly skilled workers, the ones whom can and will do a job above and beyond what it takes.

-start hiring people with lower education levels again, they seem to be some of the best workers the military has ever had. Some will argue that we need a highly educated well trained military, Yes I agree, but we do not need a Infantry Regiment, a Ships Company or an Airforce Sqn full of members whom all have University degrees.  The military can train our members to be the best, Being specific to one type of educated people is going in the wrong direction. 

- Offer lower rent on Military housing, encourage members to live on base, where the operational goals can be met quickly with out the hassle of members during snow storms and that saying I cannot make it to work due to the weather etc 

-have the Canex overhauled so that it will support our members fully, meaning no taxes on the items bought, a staff of Military and Civie personally. That way the needs are met for whom they are actually their to serve.

-Loose the people whom are confortable with their cushy jobs in support positions.  Whom think that the Cbt Arms are lesser of us all. We all work to support them, they are the primary reason why we have all these other trades. 

- make it so that every member of the CF deploys over to an operational theatre and does patrols

-have cross training with in the trades, so that every member of the Army can and will be able to use their weapon and basic soldiering skills to support operations fully. 

- have the Airforce stand up a specialized unit that supports their overseas operations, They would be tasked to do security and patrols much like the Army does. Except the Airforce would not have to rely on the Army to carry these out. Rather be able to supplement them properly.

-deploy the proper equipment for over seas deployments. Ie troops on the ground Helo's and Fast Air available from our own assets, not some one else'.

Reduce the Officer Corp to a realistic level with the level of troops and assest's we actually have.
  
Cheers all


----------



## aesop081 (22 Nov 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> - make it so that every member of the CF deploys over to an operational theatre and does patrols



And this would acheive what ? Where would you rather i be ? In the air using EO/IR, Radar, ESM and the KA-107A doing recce and Surveillance for you guys or walking the streets of Kandahar ?



> -have cross training with in the trades, so that every member of the Army can and will be able to use their weapon and basic soldiering skills to support operations fully.



Correct me if i am wrong but, was this not the idea behind the SQ course ?



> - have the Airforce stand up a specialized unit that supports their overseas operations, They would be tasked to do security and patrols much like the Army does. Except the Airforce would not have to rely on the Army to carry these out. Rather be able to supplement them properly.



Was tried before.  Anyone on KINETIC roto 0 remember how useful ASF was ?



> -deploy the proper equipment for over seas deployments. Ie troops on the ground Helo's and Fast Air available from our own assets, not some one else'.



I beleive that this is the idea behind SCTF


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Nov 2005)

"- have the Airforce stand up a specialized unit that supports their overseas operations, They would be tasked to do security and patrols much like the Army does. Except the Airforce would not have to rely on the Army to carry these out. Rather be able to supplement them properly."

And if that works out, we can send them on spec ops through the stargate.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Nov 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> -More and better training all the time, not just before work ups for deployment.
> 
> -- Offer lower rent on Military housing, encourage members to live on base, where the operational goals can be met quickly with out the hassle of members during snow storms and that saying I cannot make it to work due to the weather etc



We are the second highest paid military in the world. Buy an all wheel drive car and a condo and get yourself to work.



> -- make it so that every member of the CF deploys over to an operational theatre and does patrols
> 
> - have the Airforce stand up a specialized unit that supports their overseas operations, They would be tasked to do security and patrols much like the Army does. Except the Airforce would not have to rely on the Army to carry these out. Rather be able to supplement them properly.



OOOOOOH thats a great idea!! We have Infanteers leaving the army in droves due to boredom and a lack of opportunity to deploy and do ANYTHING, and you want to give our jobs to air force techs!! Brilliant! 

Why not have pilots flipping eggs and generals manning the C6? Because we pay people to do certain jobs, and put in alot of time and money to train them. 

Not so some Air Force technician can massage his ego because he regrets not being an infanteer in the first place. Trust me, it's always greener on the other side. Besides, I would rather have an operational helo or Herc once or twice a year, than AF cooks patrolling the streets of Kandahar.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Nov 2005)

Furthermore, I was unaware that my job was so goddamn easy that anyone can do it in their spare time!!

To think I've been wasting all this time training, when an Aviation tech can do his job, then pick up a rifle and a ruck and go do mine too!!

Why not just fire the whole army and have the AF do the ground stuff themselves? Just because they can't get a helo off the ground with a section in it with all their kit, or manage to get us a herc that *both* doors open at the same time does'nt mean that they are'nt trying!! Maybe they just need some more duties - like infanteer!!

ranting.....


----------



## aesop081 (22 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I was unaware that my job was so goddamn easy that anyone can do it in their spare time!!
> 
> To think I've been wasting all this time training, when an Aviation tech can do his job, then pick up a rifle and a ruck and go do mine too!!
> 
> ...



I feel your pain GO!!!

I have enough duties as it is and things to learn/remember/keep current....without having to do a job, on a part-time basis, that is better done by professionals such as yourself.

Like i said a few posts above, where would you rather i be ?


----------



## GO!!! (22 Nov 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I feel your pain GO!!!
> 
> I have enough duties as it is and things to learn/remember/keep current....without having to do a job, on a part-time basis, that is better done by professionals such as yourself.
> 
> Like i said a few posts above, where would you rather i be ?



Fixing your plane, shooting a C6 out the door, electronically sensing things....from the air, you know, your job!! What you joined to do!  

No offence to you, but why does everyone think that being an infanteer is so easy? I notice this seems especially prevalent in certain AF units (cough 408 sqn cough) where some of the loadies feel the need to get out of their chopper and assign arcs to the infanteers when they get out on an insertion.....we would all be better served if you would get back in and fly away, rather than trying to do my job.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> No offence to you, but why does everyone think that being an infanteer is so easy? I notice this seems especially prevalent in certain AF units (cough 408 sqn cough) where some of the loadies feel the need to get out of their chopper and assign arcs to the infanteers when they get out on an insertion.....we would all be better served if you would get back in and fly away, rather than trying to do my job.



No offence taken, 11 years as a sapper taught me a thing or 2 about infanteers


----------



## x-zipperhead (22 Nov 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> -Overhaul the Per/Pdr programme so that it has a full effect on the overall situation. Eliminate the buddy buddy system that we see all to often. The people whom write them should not be directly employed with you.



WTF?  I agree the pdr/per system is not perfect but if somebody is not directly employed ( immediate supervisor ) with you,  how in the H*** can they assess your performance?




			
				CTD said:
			
		

> -offer incentives for highly skilled workers, the ones whom can and will do a job above and beyond what it takes.



I believe this is done already through signing bonuses for skilled applicants ( college, technical trades, etc )



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> -start hiring people with lower education levels again, they seem to be some of the best workers the military has ever had. Some will argue that we need a highly educated well trained military, Yes I agree, but we do not need a Infantry Regiment, a Ships Company or an Airforce Sqn full of members whom all have University degrees.  The military can train our members to be the best, Being specific to one type of educated people is going in the wrong direction.



You've got to be kidding. I don't believe a university degree is required of any NCM trade. True you don't need to be a rhodes scholar to be effective but the pace at which technolgy is advancing and operations becoming more complex, including for infantry regiments, you can't tell me that an uneducated soldier is preferable to a high school, college, technical school or university graduate. 

.





			
				CTD said:
			
		

> - Offer lower rent on Military housing, encourage members to live on base, where the operational goals can be met quickly with out the hassle of members during snow storms and that saying I cannot make it to work due to the weather etc



It doesn't snow on PMQ's? 



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> -Loose the people whom are confortable with their cushy jobs in support positions.  Whom think that the Cbt Arms are lesser of us all. We all work to support them, they are the primary reason why we have all these other trades.



I spent 12 years cbt arms before joining the AirForce.  For the most part the attitude you describe is a myth.  Most of the people I have encountered have nothing but respect for the Cbt Arms.  Maybe the odd good natured jab but I always say if you can't take a joke don't be one.



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> - make it so that every member of the CF deploys over to an operational theatre and does patrols



Why not have them perform duties within their MOC's?  Sorry MOSID's.  I do agree that everone should be deployable but why the patrols?



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> Reduce the Officer Corp to a realistic level with the level of troops and assest's we actually have.



Agreeed.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Nov 2005)

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> but I always say if you can't take a joke don't be one.



 ;D


----------



## ZipperHead (22 Nov 2005)

CTD, you have some good points, which could probably easily be resolved, but some others on your "wish list" wouldn't be possible unless you reprogrammed every human being that put on a uniform (they try in Basic, but they don't succeed on every level).

The good (IMO):


> -More and better training all the time, not just before work ups for deployment.



The problem that I see with this is, well, money. The training you get during deployment (and which crept into deployments, i.e Bosnia) is from another budget, seperate from the unit/brigade. So, of course, EVERYBODY loves the training, they just don't love paying for it. I said it before, and I'll say it again: cost-accounting has been the death of the military.



> -start hiring people with lower education levels again, they seem to be some of the best workers the military has ever had. Some will argue that we need a highly educated well trained military, Yes I agree, but we do not need a Infantry Regiment, a Ships Company or an Airforce Sqn full of members whom all have University degrees.  The military can train our members to be the best, Being specific to one type of educated people is going in the wrong direction.



I tend to agree with this, as going after the techie crowd to attract death-techs (Inf) isn't a very smart move. I would go after the small town boys, who are good at hunting, tracking, working. Big city nerds, are, well, big city nerds.



> -Loose the people whom are confortable with their cushy jobs in support positions.  Whom think that the Cbt Arms are lesser of us all. We all work to support them, they are the primary reason why we have all these other trades.



The "Soldier First" mentality is definitely the way to go. What happened over the last 10-20 years (or perhaps even further back) where some tradesmen felt that the combat arms types were an inconvenience for them (the classic example is clerks who felt that they should exist to only help other clerks), and couldn't be bothered to learn or maintain their basic soldier skills. If you can't handle a weapon, and man a defensive position, at the least, there is no need for you, no matter how skilled you might be at flipping eggs, filing memos, or turning a wrench.



> Reduce the Officer Corp to a realistic level with the level of troops and assest's we actually have.



This one I definitely agree with: we seem to have a disproportionately large officer corps, especially when you take into account the phantom units that we hear about, but don't really seem to exist. I know the theories about how we have to be prepared to stand up these units in case of war, but I don't know how cost effective it is to have these positions filled, and having these people not doing anything. 

One thing that I'm also not a big fan of, and it might not seem like it's relative to this, but I think it is: how is it that officer's are entitled to a career, right from the get go, and NCO's just do whatever is expected of them until, wham, all of a sudden, boom, they have one. What I'm referring to, within my limited scope, so it might be different elsewhere, is that an officer will have finished their training and is then a Tp Ldr for 1 or 2 years. Then they go off and fill some weiny job somewhere, and then bounce around different headquarters, and one day appear back at the unit as a BC. Then it's off to weiny world for a few more years, then back as a 2IC. Gone again, and then they are the OC. Lather, rinse, repeat as neccesary. I know that it is a little more complicated than that (they have to be well rounded!!!), but for NCO's there is no real parallel until the rank of WO, which is, as of late, a good 20 years into a career. The officer spends 3 maybe 4 years within a Sqn, and the rest of the time is spent doing lord knows what, but probably as far away from soldiers as possible (and, one may argue, common sense). 

Some of the jobs that are in the officer's realm could easily be held by NCO's, which would greatly increase morale no doubt, are 1) Pilot. There are many Western militaries that allow NCO's to fly, maybe not all aircraft, but definitely helo's. My late father-in-law had his pilot's license, with only a grade 9 education, so it certainly doesn't require a rocket scientist to fly an aircraft. I know more than a few NCO's that have their civvy pilot's license, so there's more proof. 2) Combat arms officers. If we were to cultivate more NCO's to look at CFR as a career goal, as opposed to something to do to increase pension payoff (I wonder if that happens now??), we could have a good corps of officers that rose up from nothing. How many police forces allow a person to be a Lt before they were ever a beat cop? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Roman army, one had to rise up through the ranks before becoming a Centurion. I know this idea ruffles more than a few feathers, but I would wager the payoff would be greater, as the level of experience that the NCO's would bring would be vast, and they (should) have already proven their worth. 3) I'm sure there are more, but my brain hurts, so I need to rest it.

Now onto: the unlikely-



> -Less politics at the lower level of the troops,


Refer to my comment above ref changing how people are hard-wired.



> -No more long 20-25 year contracts. Make a overall contract as the Reserves have for a "indefinite period" of service up until retirement, Then Offer full time contracts in 3-5 year stints. In order to renew your contract you have to prove that you have done a good fair job as indicated on your PER.


I agree somewhat, as it would remove some of the element of unionization that we have achieved, but it would be hell for forecasting for postings, career courses, promotions. I must be too close to a HQ element to be thinking like this..... time for the tin-foil helmet  :warstory: 



> -Overhaul the Per/Pdr programme so that it has a full effect on the overall situation. Eliminate the buddy buddy system that we see all to often. The people whom write them should not be directly employed with you.


I don't really know what you would propose as an alternative. Have somebody who barely knows you write it? Where are they going to get their information from? Your direct supervisor, of course. I could see where this MAY work, but I think it is the exception rather than the rule. Now, to shoot my own opinion square in the foot, I know of more than a few people who made out like bandits, because they worked for the same person for at least 3 years, and they happened to be "toight". But, it also cuts the other way.... I know guys who bounce around, from job to job, or have a new supervisor every few months, so it doesn't really matter who wrote the assessment, it probably wasn't too meaningful.



> - Offer lower rent on Military housing, encourage members to live on base, where the operational goals can be met quickly with out the hassle of members during snow storms and that saying I cannot make it to work due to the weather etc


I don't know where you live, but near any major base this is impractical, if not impossible to accomplish. I have never missed a day of work due to snow, rain, sleet (I'm like a frickin' mailman, baby!!). And no, I didn't live in Victoria, Vancouver or Toronto (I would have had the army dig me out there, at least). I think that it's lame when they call "snow days". The majority of the time it seems people just use that day to go shopping anyway. And, unless you are a money managing expert, what would the average person do at the end of their career? Keep living in PMQ's, or rent forever?? Building equity with a house is where it's at, whether you're married or single. A career in the CF does have to end some day, right?!?! 

Some good ideas have been bandied about here, and a lot of the changes have come about because people did voice their feelings/opinions at things such as the SCONDVA meetings. But I think we all realize that everybody has different motivations for joining, and then as we grow older, those motivations will change (spouse, kids, mortgage, planning for life after the CF). Throwing money at a problem never seems to work, and telling people to "suck it up!" for 20-25 years doesn't seem to cut it any more, and I'm sure if/when historian's look back in 500 years at the Army.ca forums, they will shake their heads and say "Soldiers back then complained about the same things that soldiers today do!" And then a jackbooted soldier will teleport in, kill the egghead with his plasma cannon, and laugh before taking a swig of beer (though it couldn't be more than 2 beer per day, perhaps....)

Al

Note: Editted for typo's and to throw in a witty comment. Yes, I know a lot of these points were posted by other's before I got a chance, but I was on a roll, had to put my kids to bed, and damned if I was going to lose my hard-fought thoughts!!! So there.


----------



## armyvern (22 Nov 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> -Loose the people whom are confortable with their cushy jobs in support positions.   Whom think that the Cbt Arms are lesser of us all. We all work to support them, they are the primary reason why we have all these other trades.


I think we also need to get rid of the mythology, don't perpetuate it. 
I can count on one hand the number of support trades personnel I've run into that care lesser of the Cbt arms. Talk about sterotyping. I can count on the other hand the few cbt arms personnel who think the support trades are worthless, do nothing individuals who sit in cushy chairs. 





			
				CTD said:
			
		

> - make it so that every member of the CF deploys over to an operational theatre and does patrols


While we're at it, make sure that every member of the CF who deploys to an operational theatre can come in and do my job while I'm out doing patrols.


			
				CTD said:
			
		

> -have cross training with in the trades, so that every member of the Army can and will be able to use their weapon and basic soldiering skills to support operations fully.


We already attempt to do this in the Army. Soldier first, and if the crap hits the fan, I guarantee I'm dropping the AOG (as a 500 series you will understand this term) and picking up my weapon. Unfortunately, the RMS clerks, Medics, Sup Techs, et al are already in-theatre performing their MOSID job requirements in order to fully support operations. Do you propose cross-trg the other way, so that when all us support trades are busy doing patrols, checkpoints etc, the say infantry personnel will be drafting messages to NDHQ for IORs/AOGs, arranging flights, tending to someones injuries? When do you propose sending any trade (99.9% of whom) are busy enough all ready, on all the other trades courses in order to achieve this? We all have our jobs to do. Just do them.


----------



## MadNad (22 Nov 2005)

Hey Guys,

In my Opinion, (Oldies) in the 80's, we had to love it. There was nothing, except the Forces itself, that kept us in. No money, no equipment or political stuff would keep us from going away.

You had to love it. And today, it should be the same.

We are trying to look too much like the civilian workplace. But the military will never be like a civilian job.

Because we serve, we don't work.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Nov 2005)

y'know what? After some internal debate, I'd settle for a fairly decent-looking chick in a one-piece swimsuit.
I'm pretty easy-going.


----------



## TCBF (23 Nov 2005)

Why a one-piece?

Tom


----------



## ZipperHead (23 Nov 2005)

I'm just wondering if he meant a top OR bottom  >

Al


----------

