# Reconstitution



## Kilted (6 Oct 2022)

Military's chief orders halt to non-essential activities, focus on personnel crisis
		


It will be interesting to see which activities are actually halted.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> Military's chief orders halt to non-essential activities, focus on personnel crisis
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see which activities are actually halted.



Meanwhile, and ironically, attrition will go through the roof as the CAF does nothing else but recruiting and dog and pony shows


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> Military's chief orders halt to non-essential activities, focus on personnel crisis
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see which activities are actually halted.



Agreed.


----------



## Kilted (6 Oct 2022)

I'm concerned that a lot of the things that they are going to start getting rid of, are the only things that actually put the CAF in the public eye, except for you know, people getting accused of sexual misconduct.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, and ironically, attrition will go through the roof as the CAF does nothing else but recruits and does dog and pony shows


Without a strategy to actually retain people this is only step 0. Hopefully there is a plan, and someone to see it through. Part if the CAFs problem is one person starts something, gets posted and the next person  wants to do it differently.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Oct 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Without a strategy to actually retain people this is only step 0. Hopefully there is a plan, and someone to see it through. Part if the CAFs problem is one person starts something, gets posted and the next person  wants to do it differently.



I recall a similar effort around the time of OP PODIUM. 

We did no real training, and spent our time mainly focused on COMREL activities. Numbers declined precipitously as a result.

IIRC that any organization that has to declare 'down tools' to focus on recruiting has no idea how to properly manage a large, complex business in the modern world.


----------



## Kilted (6 Oct 2022)

Let me guess:
Ceremonial Guard
National Sentry Program
Mess/Christmas Dinners
Change of Command Parades
Freedom of the City Parade's
Highland Games
Most Public Affairs activities
Iron Warrior and similar activities


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2022)

Reconstitution has been ongoing for a while.

 All those CoC parades that were changed to CoC Ceremonies (in the RCAF, at least) recently?  Reconstitution.  

Maintenance of Low Ready items for FGBLs sliding slightly for higher priority items?  Reconstitution.


----------



## Kilted (6 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Reconstitution has been ongoing for a while.
> 
> All those CoC parades that were changed to CoC Ceremonies (in the RCAF, at least) recently?  Reconstitution.


Was that not a COVID thing?


----------



## Quirky (6 Oct 2022)

People won't stay past their first contract until all the internal issues are addressed first, like pay, postings, PLD (or whatever version you want to call it), COL, housing, outdated equipment, no real direction for the CAF, along with all the other issues already known. CFLRS site shows plenty of BMQ course grad dates coming up, so it's not like St. Jean is empty. Also, waiting months and months for applicants to be offered a spot is unacceptable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> Was that not a COVID thing?



There was similar stuff as part Op Laser phases; this is post-Laser directives as part of Reconstitution.

CA info:  Reconstitution - Canada.ca

I don’t see anything available open source
for RCAF directives at this point, or RCN.


----------



## Kilted (6 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> People won't stay past their first contract until all the internal issues are addressed first, like pay, postings, PLD (or whatever version you want to call it), COL, housing, outdated equipment, no real direction for the CAF, along with all the other issues already known. CFLRS site shows plenty of BMQ course grad dates coming up, so it's not like St. Jean is empty. Also, waiting months and months for applicants to be offered a spot is unacceptable.


And getting rid of Change of Command Parades is going to fix that?

That being said, there was one summer in Meaford, where the majority of the base lost the weekend to make up for the time that was spent preparing for a change of command parade.  Being staff, I was not on the parade, but I did for some reason have to sit there for three days watching all the parade practices and finally the real thing.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (6 Oct 2022)

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Snowbirds being cut out of this. Also reading the CDS directive, it mentioned about aligning CDA and other stake holders to facilitate accreditation of PLQ. Having been through this process myself for someone, it was the most pain taking admin process ever. This is a low hanging fruit easy to fix imo.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2022)

Folks,
Have a read of the Action Items for the CA.  It goes beyond cancelling CoC parades.






						Reconstitution - Canada.ca
					

Canadian Army (CA) Reconstitution efforts will be focused on working within a Canadian Armed Forces framework to meet the personnel generation needs of the near term while preparing to meet longer-term modernization requirements.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2022)

Eagle_Eye_View said:


> I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Snowbirds being cut out of this. Also reading the CDS directive, it mentioned about aligning CDA and other stake holders to facilitate accreditation of PLQ. Having been through this process myself for someone, it was the most pain taking admin process ever. This is a low hanging fruit easy to fix imo.



PLQ changes and the roulette wheel metrology applied on the Qual over the last decade + has not done out Jnr NCO Corps any favours.   The Game of Thrones model to its delivery pan-CAF should have been corrected long ago IMO.


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2022)

I found the below hard to follow 

*Expected for several months, the order follows a period of unprecedented activity by the military. That includes large-scale deployments to Iraq, Mali, Ukraine and Latvia as well as helping with the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters in Canada.*

I don’t think I’d claim any of those are actually large scale when one looks at the size of the CAF, it really just heightens the lack of capabilities the CAF has.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Oct 2022)

Might help if people could get in the door quickly and be employed more or less immediately doing something useful (including being trained).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I found the below hard to follow
> 
> *Expected for several months, the order follows a period of unprecedented activity by the military. That includes large-scale deployments to Iraq, Mali, Ukraine and Latvia as well as helping with the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters in Canada.*
> 
> I don’t think I’d claim any of those are actually large scale when one looks at the size of the CAF, it really just heightens the lack of capabilities the CAF has.



It’s a Govt of Canada technique called…







😁


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Folks,
> Have a read of the Action Items for the CA.  It goes beyond cancelling CoC parades.
> 
> 
> ...



No direction from the RCN yet.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Oct 2022)

Don't worry, the RCN is focusing on what's really important; bling.

Commander RCN announces winner of coin design contest

Expected changes to the fleet sched; zero. Are we still going to operate the sail boat, run our ships with half crews, and beat the ships like rentals? Hell yeah.


----------



## Lumber (6 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> No direction from the RCN yet.


That's because the Navy is busy trying to figure out how to word their direction so that they can convey that they are following CDS direction while actually just doing their own thing.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> That's because the Navy is busy trying to figure out how to word their direction so that they can convey that they are following CDS direction while actually just doing their own thing.


----------



## Mills Bomb (6 Oct 2022)

These are some pretty interesting stories making news, but the truth is the government has essentially killed the Canadian military. 

It's clear that this is no longer a military people many people want to join - I mean even the CAF is admitting it, the verdict amongst young people is out and overwhelmingly they know how much the CAF sucks these days. From long hours, lots of old junky equipment, very low pay, often no NVG's, radios that never work, mistreatment of veterans with limited help for those with PTSD, limited options if you're injured, boring human dog & pony show parades often for officers who have never even deployed, terrible isolated bases, DND public servants who make more and do less, Left-wing Liberal politics that don't really match the CAF, a controversial PM, and the fact the fed will throw this organization under the bus if it benefits them, it's painfully obvious to anyone who spends even 5-10 minutes researching the organization things clearly aren't how they should be in terms of a functioning military meant to protect the nation in full spectrum combat operations. Sorry that was a long rant - but these are things I hear literally ALL the time from people leaving. 

I recently had a doctors appointment with my civilian doctor who told me he has seen an increase in young clients coming to him for medical appointments relating to joining the British and French militaries because they have no interest in the CAF. 

The most senior members of this military seem too often have one specialty; telling us how big changes and improvements are "just over the horizon" and yet so few ideas ever come to fruition. They deliver on so little these days. There will always be some riding out the storm, and no doubt some people will keep trying the CAF as recruits. Without immediate massive pay increases, quality of life improvements, new equipment, and an overall revival of a real serious military type atmosphere I think we're stuck on a sinking ship in terms of both recruitment and retention. This isn't something that is realistically going to be fixed anytime soon.


----------



## Mills Bomb (6 Oct 2022)

I forgot one of the biggest and most insane reasons why I've been seeing many people leave; spending their entire first enlistment without being fully trained because the courses they were promised never materialized. So they were a professional PAT recruit who spent 3 years picking up garbage, building mod tents, putting out cookies and powdered coffee, and just generally getting treated like trash doing something they never signed up for, while all their friends from high school are having a great time at college or university.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Oct 2022)

Mills Bomb said:


> I forgot one of the biggest and most insane reasons why I've been seeing many people leave; spending their entire first enlistment without being fully trained because the courses they were promised never materialized. So they were a professional PAT recruit who spent 3 years picking up garbage, building mod tents, putting out cookies and powdered coffee, and just generally getting treated like trash doing something they never signed up for, while all their friends from high school are having a great time at college or university.



And then there's....


----------



## stoker dave (6 Oct 2022)

I don't think the government will grow the budget to match DND's requirements. 

DND will shrink their requirements to match the budget.   I think that is partly what this is about.  

Submarines, military colleges, etc should all be nervous.


----------



## FJAG (6 Oct 2022)

Mills Bomb said:


> These are some pretty interesting stories making news, but the truth is the government has essentially killed the Canadian military.


Serendipitously, I just started rereading  Granatstein's book "Who Killed the Canadian Military". The short answer is, we all did.

I joined in 1965 and retired in 2009. The Canadian Military has died numerous times during that period and has always been reborn, weaker, smaller and more expensive. Throughout that period we have never lived under any military threat that would effect Canadians' way of life. Even now with a dysfunctional Russia and an expansionist China looming Canadians see no long term consequences that will descend on their children or children's children so as to merit sinking more funds into the military.

Just as bad, Canada's military leadership will not let go of their incessant infighting and belief that the status quo will be just fine with a little rearranging of deck chairs and a bit more cash.

The problems the military is facing with recruiting and retention and general job dissatisfaction is not new. It's been going on for decades with a short respite while everyone rolled up their sleeves to get the job done in Afghanistan.

Canada's top military is a moribund bureaucracy that will never solve its problems without a major shakeup. It will muddle through but in the end it will, once again, be weaker, smaller and more expensive.

😖


----------



## Kilted (6 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Serendipitously, I just started rereading  Granatstein's book "Who Killed the Canadian Military". The short answer is, we all did.
> 
> I joined in 1965 and retired in 2009. The Canadian Military has died numerous times during that period and has always been reborn, weaker, smaller and more expensive. Throughout that period we have never lived under any military threat that would effect Canadians' way of life. Even now with a dysfunctional Russia and an expansionist China looming Canadians see no long term consequences that will descend on their children or children's children so as to merit sinking more funds into the military.
> 
> ...


So basically, based on Canadian history, you are saying that we need a major war to fix this.


----------



## FJAG (6 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> So basically, based on Canadian history, you are saying that we need a major war to fix this.


Not really. Based on history, every time the war ends we go back to Step 0 again with the only byproduct being a whole lot of clapped out gear littering the armouries' floors and warehouses.

😁


----------



## QV (6 Oct 2022)

I'm stunned such initiatives as purple hair, face tats, diversity related recruiting targets, continuing C19 mandates, and marketing that the CAF is full of sexual deviants hasn't already immediately reversed the retention/recruiting crisis.


----------



## Mills Bomb (6 Oct 2022)

stoker dave said:


> I don't think the government will grow the budget to match DND's requirements.
> 
> DND will shrink their requirements to match the budget.   I think that is partly what this is about.
> 
> Submarines, military colleges, etc should all be nervous.


I suspect you could be absolutely right. We could absolutely see things get even worse soon in some departments in the name of "Reconstitution" or however this goes down.

Officers have always been easy targets but the truth is even the most senior ranking in this organization are mostly powerless in making changes to things like funding or military culture to save the organization. As mentioned by another poster, it's a political problem now, Canadians made their choice, there's nothing anyone can really do right now and there's no realistic group of people running to take power and change this in a drastic way. Aside from the occasional rally, the Canadian military just isn't all that great when compared to other big NATO members and it will most likely stay this way for a long time to come, pending something truly unexpected and crazy happening. 

This will just be one more storm to ride out for those who are too deep to quit right now, and also one more reason why most people just aren't interested in getting involved at this time.


----------



## Mills Bomb (6 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> I'm stunned such initiatives as purple hair, face tats, diversity related recruiting targets, continuing C19 mandates, and marketing that the CAF is full of sexual deviants hasn't already immediately reversed the retention/recruiting crisis.



The powers that be actually thought this would be an "improvement" that would drive up recruiting. That's how out of touch these people are. I would tend to think that most military minded people knew these were controversial ideas. Of course nobody who unrolled this no-cost "improvement" is ever going to admit it's not working.

I'm all for allowing folks a little more freedom, a better quality of life, but "anything goes" just isn't military and the recruiting numbers seem to reflect that. But it's only one small part of a big series of problems.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> That's because the Navy is busy trying to figure out how to word their direction so that they can convey that they are following CDS direction while actually just doing their own thing.


I laughed, then remembered how the HMCS Oriole got funding for major improvements to bring it up to basic safety standards last time we had funding cuts because it 'was a great recruiting tool' 'the Admiral insisted on it' etc etc.  Way more value for money than a fire tug.

Based on the moustache pin ,the CRCN coin and the stupid Golden Snitch statue in the NCR convinced the RCN  BGHS are just dead inside with no sense of aethetics, so expecting them to sing the praises of the new RCN HQ in Place du Portage and the inspiring nature of the brutalist architecture and concrete landscaping.

'Twitter first, buttons and bows always'.

A sustainable operational capability doesn't seem to even be in the top 5. I suspect some CPFs will self retire before I will, and we're about the same age.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2022)

Mills Bomb said:


> These are some pretty interesting stories making news, but the truth is the government has essentially killed the Canadian military.
> 
> It's clear that this is no longer a military people many people want to join - I mean even the CAF is admitting it, the verdict amongst young people is out and overwhelmingly they know how much the CAF sucks these days. From long hours, lots of old junky equipment, very low pay, often no NVG's, radios that never work, mistreatment of veterans with limited help for those with PTSD, limited options if you're injured, boring human dog & pony show parades often for officers who have never even deployed, terrible isolated bases, DND public servants who make more and do less, Left-wing Liberal politics that don't really match the CAF, a controversial PM, and the fact the fed will throw this organization under the bus if it benefits them, it's painfully obvious to anyone who spends even 5-10 minutes researching the organization things clearly aren't how they should be in terms of a functioning military meant to protect the nation in full spectrum combat operations. Sorry that was a long rant - but these are things I hear literally ALL the time from people leaving.
> 
> ...


You could have written this in 1975 - and still be totally correct. I am sure Mr. Campbell and many others from the 60s and 70s can attest to that. 

The more things change...


----------



## Remius (6 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> Let me guess:
> Ceremonial Guard
> National Sentry Program
> Mess/Christmas Dinners
> ...


Just go look at the common tasks to all and the CA specific ones.  Most of that is there. 

Also Bands.  While vague there are tea leaves easily read in this directive.


----------



## Kilted (6 Oct 2022)

So are we not going to be allow to participate in Remembrance Day?


----------



## Remius (6 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> So are we not going to be allow to participate in Remembrance Day?


Are you asking if the CAF will be participating? The answer is yes.


----------



## Kilted (6 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> Just go look at the common tasks to all and the CA specific ones.  Most of that is there.
> 
> Also Bands.  While vague there are tea leaves easily read in this directive.


Maybe if we would finally just tell musicians that they have to be dual trade and hold them accountable like the rest of the forces, than this might be less of an issue.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2022)

Mills Bomb said:


> no doubt some people will keep trying the CAF as recruits.* Without immediate massive pay increases*, quality of life improvements, new equipment, and an overall revival of a real serious military type atmosphere I think we're stuck on a sinking ship in terms of both recruitment and retention. This isn't something that is realistically going to be fixed anytime soon.



I don't know that pay increases do much for new entries.  New equipment and a clear mission statement would probably go further with getting people in the front door and keeping a hold of them for a couple of years.   Quality of life and pay increases will dictate if they want to stick around and turn it into a career.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> So are we not going to be allow to participate in Remembrance Day *Month*?



There, FTFY


----------



## Remius (6 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> Maybe if we would finally just tell musicians that they have to be dual trade and hold them accountable like the rest of the forces, than this might be less of an issue.


Dual trade or given an element task.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2022)

Musicians are a small branch; a company or so in total.

Great as a distraction to prevent any discussion of the Army's nine battalions or three "cavalry" regiments, or the RCAF's desire to keep hundreds of future pilots on the books despite being unable to train more than 100 per year, or any other personnel-rich areas that need a solid scrubdown.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Musicians are a small branch; a company or so in total.
> 
> Great as a distraction to prevent any discussion of the Army's nine battalions or three "cavalry" regiments, or the RCAF's desire to keep hundreds of future pilots on the books despite being unable to train more than 100 per year, or any other personnel-rich areas that need a solid scrubdown.



Reserve CBG HQs enter the chat...


----------



## AmmoTech90 (6 Oct 2022)

From the CA direction:


> Reorganization (change the structure): take a thoughtful approach


In other words take so long that everything else has to be rushed and done half-assed.


----------



## kev994 (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> or the RCAF's desire to keep hundreds of future pilots on the books despite being unable to train more than 100 per year, .


a lot of those are ROTP so there’s a 5-year lead time, it’s pretty hard to predict 5 years in advance, especially when we keep thinking this new idea will increase throughput but then it doesn’t.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> a lot of those are ROTP so there’s a 5-year lead time, it’s pretty hard to predict 5 years in advance, especially when we keep thinking this new idea will increase throughput but then it doesn’t.



The RCAF has tried little to no new ideas in pilot training.  ROTP grads are waiting 2-3+ years post graduation to sit in a cockpit.  There are great economies to be found there...

Perhaps even abolishing ROTP...


----------



## kev994 (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The RCAF has tried little to no new ideas in pilot training.  ROTP grads are waiting 2-3+ years post graduation to sit in a cockpit.  There are great economies to be found there...
> 
> Perhaps even abolishing ROTP...


They’ve cut the number of lesson plans in Moose Jaw drastically, unintentionally pushing these training events to the units.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The RCAF has tried little to no new ideas in pilot training.  ROTP grads are waiting 2-3+ years post graduation to sit in a cockpit.  There are great economies to be found there...
> 
> Perhaps even abolishing ROTP...


Or...maybe the GoC not cutting resources so drastically in the early-90s and directing that the RCAF accept redirection of its own pilot production regularly putting out 125-130 pilots a year to one of the GoC's (of the day) _Paragon of Canadian Aerospace Industry_TM via alternative service delivery (ASD)?


----------



## kev994 (6 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> They’ve cut the number of lesson plans in Moose Jaw drastically, unintentionally pushing these training events to the units.


And tried increasing the number of students per course, which obviously didn’t change anything because it doesn’t change the number of missions. They added phase 2 on the Grob so now they can sit as Capts and wait for the OTU instead of being 2Lts waiting for phase 2.


----------



## kev994 (6 Oct 2022)

Nav to the document: I thought this but was interesting: 

Adjust leave policy to provide greater flexibility to accumulate or cash out annual leave;
Also noted that in timings it says NLT APS22…. I think that’s in the past, so this document has presumably been in the works for a while.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> Nav to the document: I thought this but was interesting:
> 
> Adjust leave policy to provide greater flexibility to accumulate or cash out annual leave;
> Also noted that in timings it says NLT APS22…. I think that’s in the past, so this document has presumably been in the works for a while.


Accumulation is a large future liability.

Cash out, while the CAF is understrength, is a more viable option.

But there should be negative repercussions for COs not giving people the ability to take annual.


----------



## Quirky (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> But there should be negative repercussions for COs not giving people the ability to take annual.



Not giving leave and not taking leave are two separate issues. Most of the complaints I’ve seen around being “forced” to use annual before FY is the member not using it.


----------



## kev994 (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Accumulation is a large future liability.


That’s a later problem, that’s perfect.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (6 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> Not giving leave and not taking leave are two separate issues. Most of the complaints I’ve seen around being “forced” to use annual before FY is the member not using it.


I have had a fair few folks who have been legitimately unable to take leave, due to operational tempo mind you, who are then forced to take 2 months off before end of FY.

This is a huge piss off, mainly because what the hell do they expect a person to do with a full years worth of time off during the most inhospitable time of year in this country? Kids are still in school, it's cold and miserable, and it's the busiest time of year with SLOC verification, PARs, and any numer of other "it's almost April" tasks.

If folks were able to legitimately bank it for use within the next fiscal year, no issue. If they wanted to cash out up to say 10 days within a fiscal year, non-issue.

You would see productivity go up and less people griping about being told how and when to take their PTO.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Oct 2022)

I'll cash my leave out, but I'll take a full months pay with allowances per 5 days. 

I'm not taking a 1 for 1 exchange to reward the CAF for garbage leadership.


----------



## Remius (6 Oct 2022)

I’m am far from a pension expert but why not use that banked time as a pension credit of some sort.  Or tack it on as a bank of “pre retirement leave”.   People would go for that I would suspect.


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> I’m am far from a pension expert but why not use that banked time as a pension credit of some sort.  Or tack it on as a bank of “pre retirement leave”.   People would go for that I would suspect.


Terminal Leave is the most expensive type of leave, as generally the member has reached their highest rank and seniority.  
    You ideally don’t want that occurring.


----------



## kev994 (6 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Terminal Leave is the most expensive type of leave, as generally the member has reached their highest rank and seniority.
> You ideally don’t want that occurring.


Ideally you don’t want to be so under-staffed that you’re on the brink of collapse, but here we are so I propose we should look at solutions that aren’t quite ideal but sill have a positive impact.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2022)

There are rarely valid reasons to permit accumulation.


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> Ideally you don’t want to be so under-staffed that you’re on the brink of collapse, but here we are so I propose we should look at solutions that aren’t quite ideal but sill have a positive impact.


It happens and there are some legit reasons for it — but honestly it happens a lot more than legit reasons. 
   It happens down here a lot at GOFO levels, as well as in JSOC, but the difference is the JSOC folks are actually running around being busy not simply golfing on duty and no taking leave…


----------



## kev994 (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> There are rarely valid reasons to permit accumulation.


What about when there’s a whole section (several of them actually) that is understaffed to the point where we can’t afford to give them their shift days off, let alone take all of their annual. And it’s a pri 1 task 24/7 so we can’t just not do it either. We forego their shift days off and put them on annual? Doesn’t really solve the problem, just renames it.


----------



## MJP (6 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have had a fair few folks who have been legitimately unable to take leave, due to operational tempo mind you, who are then forced to take 2 months off before end of FY.
> 
> This is a huge piss off, mainly because what the hell do they expect a person to do with a full years worth of time off during the most inhospitable time of year in this country? Kids are still in school, it's cold and miserable, and it's the busiest time of year with SLOC verification, PARs, and any numer of other "it's almost April" tasks.
> 
> ...


Yea it would be interesting to see them treat it similar to how Public Servants are in terms of banking/carrying forward. Likely with a few modifications.  However I am a big fan of just letting ppl go on leave and CoC should be making sure folks get time.  I wish it was  bit more grown up and ditch the concept of leave blocks (outside of genuine need to manage readiness) and allow ppl to manage their leave better.  It also helps if CoC were quicker on the signing trigger, always hated waiting or making ppl wait for a routine day off

Also have been around enough to know that there are more than a few suspects that somehow always end up "never" having time to take leave and need to accumulate but that also goes back to the supervisors who should be watching for it.


Remius said:


> I’m am far from a pension expert but why not use that banked time as a pension credit of some sort.  Or tack it on as a bank of “pre retirement leave”.   People would go for that I would suspect.


We have the current rules on accumulation because ppl banked years of leave (while magically still going on leave)


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> What about when there’s a whole section (several of them actually) that is understaffed to the point where we can’t afford to give them their shift days off, let alone take all of their annual. And it’s a pri 1 task 24/7 so we can’t just not do it either. We forego their shift days off and put them on annual? Doesn’t really solve the problem, just renames it.


It’s a valid reason for the individuals, but not the organization.  If something is Pri 1, it should be properly manned for 24/7 operations - which is generally a 5:1 requirement.


----------



## Fabius (6 Oct 2022)

Why are our timelines for fixing current problems always measured in decades? This order goes out to 2030. 
I get phasing and starting with what we can do now but really? I mean World War Two only lasted 7 years by that measure we could not acccomplish anything. 

I am tracking that this will continue to mean no to the following items; CAFSAC, Worthington Cup, Canadian Patrol Concentration, and related foreign events.


----------



## Fabius (6 Oct 2022)

Additionally FMSD predates F2025 by at least two years if my memory is not to wrong so obviously that planning is well advanced. 😆


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Oct 2022)

Fabius said:


> I am tracking that this will continue to mean no to the following items; CAFSAC, Worthington Cup, Canadian Patrol Concentration, and related foreign events.


That will change when someone sacred cow is impacted, or the FN's complain about the military showing up. So what about Nov 11th ceremonies?


----------



## Furniture (6 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> It’s a valid reason for the individuals, but not the organization.  If something is Pri 1, it should be properly manned for 24/7 operations - which is generally a 5:1 requirement.


There are 24/7 sections that are required, but not Pri 1.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2022)

Fabius said:


> Additionally FMSD predates F2025 by at least two years if my memory is not to wrong so obviously that planning is well advanced. 😆


FMSD is evergreen.  Or, at least, continually employs CFD staff to generate options rejected because they could force hard decisions.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> There are rarely valid reasons to permit accumulation.


Yet, the PS is allowed to do it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> or the RCAF's desire to keep hundreds of future pilots on the books despite being unable to train more than 100 per year, or any other personnel-rich areas that need a solid scrubdown.


Honestly, without pilot 2Lts, my unit would likely collapse.  We have several that do full time jobs that senior Capts in other trades normally carry (A4 Log, Fin, AOO, etc).  What I wished we allowed them to do is train in a trade that had training capacity (remaining pilots awaiting training), allowing them to reach an OFP in that trade and start being paid appropriately while being very gainfully employed. 

They don’t have to stay home or make pop corn.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Yet, the PS is allowed to do it.


The PS has limits; 262.5 hours (aka 35 days), as opposed to 25 days for CAF members.

That said, PS leave entitlements are significantly less than those of the CAF.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The PS has limits; 262.5 hours (aka 35 days), as opposed to 25 days for CAF members.
> 
> That said, PS leave entitlements are significantly less than those of the CAF.


It’s more than the CAF and there is no getting authorization from the CDS (yes, I am exagerating but I am trying to make a point about an organization that preaches « power to the edge » yet, does the exact opposite).  They just get accumulated.  If you have more than 35 days, you just get paid out.

In fact, the CAF is 0 but by exception, you may get up to 25 days.  But only if big Parent says yes.

I would love to be able to accumulate without have to justify and take extra long vacations every couple of years, when the time is right and that the op tempo allows.  Right now, I force myself to take leave at times that don’t really work for the family plans and leave isn’t achieving the effect it is meant to…


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2022)

Compare CAF and PS leave; over 25 years, a CAF member will work half a year less (without considering the 4 short every Xmas).  When you look at comp and ben, the greatly enhanced leave provisions (among others) need to be considered.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Compare CAF and PS leave; over 25 years, a CAF member will work half a year less (without considering the 4 short every Xmas).  When you look at comp and ben, the greatly enhanced leave provisions (among others) need to be considered.


Compare that to being forced to move every couple of years.

The current leave accumulation/pay out policy is actually counter to the intent of leave.  People end up « burning » leave. And I think it’s a symptom of the organization treating our people like they are a free ressource, until we have to pay them for leave payout.  If we actually had to manage people’s time and pay overtime when people work more than the normal workweek, that perception may change.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Compare CAF and PS leave; over 25 years, a CAF member will work half a year less (without considering the 4 short every Xmas).  When you look at comp and ben, the greatly enhanced leave provisions (among others) need to be considered.


Only if you assume both are working normal hours only.  You can work side by side with PS doing overtime and watch them rack up time in lieu. I think I would have maxed out accumulated time off last year no problem if I had gotten OT.

We're so short handed if I take a week off I come back to a massive backlog that will take a month or more to pick away at working extra hours, and the organization continually puts on large LOE intensive before/during/after normal leave periods. That's not really uncommon where we're at, but tends to make time off almost counter productive as we're too shorthanded to actually have anyone genuinely able to cover off anything but emergency requests..

I've yet to see anyone actually planning at high levels to do less with less, and continually seems surprised if we don't actually progress items we repeatedly flag as below the cut off line for what we can reasonably do. The trend actually seems to be to just continually add additional processes, so it takes more LOE to do the same tasks on top of it (ie takes more LOE to get less actually done)

I think a better metric for leave accumulation or OT in general would be why is it required in the first place? The organization systematically has killed any possibilty of a real work/life balance by making everything 'no fail' options but not giving us resources/time to do it, and doing things like just saying no to high level requests.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Oct 2022)

Allowing people to take leave when they want sounds great when your an army unit who goes to the field only a couple times a year. 

Unfortunately big grey floaty things go to sea alot more than that and people have to plan around big grey floaty things schedules. 

The RCN should be flexible when it comes to crewing and bend it for purpose of the trip.

Unfortunately engineering is always going to get boned.


----------



## Fabius (7 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Allowing people to take leave when they want sounds great when your an army unit who goes to the field only a couple times a year.
> 
> Unfortunately big grey floaty things go to sea alot more than that and people have to plan around big grey floaty things schedules.
> 
> ...



True as well for Army units when you factor in courses needing to be run and IRU schedules etc. 
However if our units were planned closer to war strength manning vs current constructs and then staffed to 100-110% it would be possible to allow some mission command to lower level leadership to manage personal leave requests and military requirements. 

A small establishment filled to 80% (Honestly even a 100% but small numbers of certain qualms and ranks) with 10- 20% on TCAT, PCAT, MELs, life reasons for being unavailable for deployment etc quickly limits all flexibility.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The RCAF has tried little to no new ideas in pilot training.  ROTP grads are waiting 2-3+ years post graduation to sit in a cockpit.  There are great economies to be found there...
> 
> _Perhaps even abolishing ROTP_...



No ... abolish the Military Colleges. Make ROTP like the UNTD and COTC of decades ago: you, if you are fit, have no criminal record and under the age of 25, get your tuition books and fees paid and a stipend for living expenses IF:

1. You are doing academically well (slightly better then just a bare pass) in a programme that the CF actually needs (i.e. not gender studies);​2. You appear, at least once a week and one week-end a month for military training; and​3. You pass your (well paid) summer phase training courses.​​Those who do 1, 2 and 3 for the requisite four years will be offered either:

a. A short service commission (60 months) with a *firm commitment* that the CF will train you to deck, platoon/troop command or wings standard in less than 18 months. In other words, you get useful training and, eventually, 3+ years of "work" to put on your resumé and the possibility (say 50%) of being offered an intermediate (15 more years during which you MUST _*earn*_ (through as mix of examinations and performance) the rank of Cdr/LCol) and, maybe, later (25% of the surviving Cdrs/LCols) a long service (to age 57) commission with the prospect of Capt(N)/Col, Cmdre and Adm/Gen;  or​b. A commission into a Naval reserve division or an Army reserve unit - and the country, we assume, benefits from your "free" education.​


----------



## dapaterson (7 Oct 2022)

The Army seems to have abandoned the concept of units other than as notional administrative organizations, and treats them all as bottomless manpower pools to fill whatever CFTPO related stupidity gets created.


----------



## Remius (7 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> No ... abolish the Military Colleges. Make ROTP like the UNTD and COTC of decades ago: you, if you are fit, have no criminal record and under the age of 25, get your tuition books and fees paid and a stipend for living expenses IF:
> 
> 1. You are doing academically well (slightly better then just a bare pass) in a programme that the CF actually needs (i.e. not gender studies);​2. You appear, at least once a week and one week-end a month for military training; and​3. You pass your (well paid) summer phase training courses.​​Those who do 1, 2 and 3 for the requisite four years will be offered either:
> 
> a. A short service commission (60 months) with a *firm commitment* that the CF will train you to deck, platoon/troop command or wings standard in less than 18 months. In other words, you get useful training and, eventually, 3+ years of "work" to put on your resumé and the possibility (say 50%) of being offered an intermediate (15 more years during which you MUST _*earn*_ (through as mix of examinations and performance) the rank of Cdr/LCol) and, maybe, later (25% of the surviving Cdrs/LCols) a long service (to age 57) commission with the prospect of Capt(N)/Col, Cmdre and Adm/Gen;  or​b. A commission into a Naval reserve division or an Army reserve unit - and the country, we assume, benefits from your "free" education.​


My guess is that he was talking about abandoning ROTP for pilots.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> My guess is that he was talking about abandoning ROTP for pilots.


Probably ... but I wanted to get that off my chest.

The entire "production of officers" (never mind leaders, that's too much to contemplate) process is totally and completely:

... and the only solution is, probably, to hire our friend Kat Stevens to demolish the whole thing, and clear the field for a new start.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> No ... abolish the Military Colleges. Make ROTP like the UNTD and COTC of decades ago: you, if you are fit, have no criminal record and under the age of 25, get your tuition books and fees paid and a stipend for living expenses IF:
> 
> 1. You are doing academically well (slightly better then just a bare pass) in a programme that the CF actually needs (i.e. not gender studies);​2. You appear, at least once a week and one week-end a month for military training; and​3. You pass your (well paid) summer phase training courses.​​Those who do 1, 2 and 3 for the requisite four years will be offered either:
> 
> a. A short service commission (60 months) with a *firm commitment* that the CF will train you to deck, platoon/troop command or wings standard in less than 18 months. In other words, you get useful training and, eventually, 3+ years of "work" to put on your resumé and the possibility (say 50%) of being offered an intermediate (15 more years during which you MUST _*earn*_ (through as mix of examinations and performance) the rank of Cdr/LCol) and, maybe, later (25% of the surviving Cdrs/LCols) a long service (to age 57) commission with the prospect of Capt(N)/Col, Cmdre and Adm/Gen;  or​b. A commission into a Naval reserve division or an Army reserve unit - and the country, we assume, benefits from your "free" education.​


Before you abolish the Military Colleges, just let me know first. I want to make sure I get into my school of choice for my Masters before everyone think I printed my degree from the internet 🤣


----------



## dapaterson (7 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Before you abolish the Military Colleges, just let me know first. I want to make sure I get into my school of choice for my Masters before everyone think I printed my degree from the internet 🤣


You mean like a retired 3* who proudly hung his pay to play MBA in his I Love Me wall?


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> Ideally you don’t want to be so under-staffed that you’re on the brink of collapse, but here we are so I propose we should look at solutions that aren’t quite ideal but sill have a positive impact.



There's a really poor understanding of how to manage limited resources, in much of the CAF that I've seen anyways.

In some businesses it's easy to figure out who to fire first because departments that are always asking for more people (because they suck at project management and basic leadership skills) probably need a new boss


----------



## FJAG (7 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> No ... abolish the Military Colleges. Make ROTP like the UNTD and COTC of decades ago: you, if you are fit, have no criminal record and under the age of 25, get your tuition books and fees paid and a stipend for living expenses IF:
> 
> 1. You are doing academically well (slightly better then just a bare pass) in a programme that the CF actually needs (i.e. not gender studies);​2. You appear, at least once a week and one week-end a month for military training; and​3. You pass your (well paid) summer phase training courses.​​Those who do 1, 2 and 3 for the requisite four years will be offered either:
> 
> a. A short service commission (60 months) with a *firm commitment* that the CF will train you to deck, platoon/troop command or wings standard in less than 18 months. In other words, you get useful training and, eventually, 3+ years of "work" to put on your resumé and the possibility (say 50%) of being offered an intermediate (15 more years during which you MUST _*earn*_ (through as mix of examinations and performance) the rank of Cdr/LCol) and, maybe, later (25% of the surviving Cdrs/LCols) a long service (to age 57) commission with the prospect of Capt(N)/Col, Cmdre and Adm/Gen;  or​b. A commission into a Naval reserve division or an Army reserve unit - and the country, we assume, benefits from your "free" education.​


100% in favour.

Go a step further and create a similar program for NCMs where we pay the tuition etc for community colleges for vital trades like mechanics, heavy truckers, construction engineers, paramedics, cooks etc; use the summer to convert their training to a military environment and then two or three years of regular or reserve service. That way they'll have their civilian and military ticket stamped from the getgo. Betcha you'll grow a group of really dedicated and fully trained reservists that you can call on when you need them.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> 100% in favour.
> 
> Go a step further and create a similar program for NCMs where we pay the tuition etc for community colleges for vital trades like mechanics, heavy truckers, construction engineers, paramedics, cooks etc; use the summer to convert their training to a military environment and then two or three years of regular or reserve service. That way they'll have their civilian and military ticket stamped from the getgo. Betcha you'll grow a group of really dedicated and fully trained reservists that you can call on when you need them.
> 
> 🍻



The huge irony is that the CAF is providing strong incentives to its members to do your time in the military, and then retire (after 6 or 12 years) with a pile of cash to spend on upgrading your skills in areas like those you've just listed.



			https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/education-and-jobs/back-to-school/education-training-benefit


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> The huge irony is that the CAF is providing strong incentives to its members to do your time in the military, and then retire (after 6 or 12 years) with a pile of cash to spend on upgrading your skills in areas like those you've just listed.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/education-and-jobs/back-to-school/education-training-benefit


It's almost like some of us have the ability to plan 😁.

At this point I tell everyone to use it (the CAF) for what it's worth and then take advantage of the entitlements 😁


----------



## mariomike (7 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Go a step further and create a similar program for NCMs where we pay the tuition etc for community colleges for vital trades like mechanics, heavy truckers, construction engineers, paramedics, cooks etc; use the summer to convert their training to a military environment and then two or three years of regular or reserve service. That way they'll have their civilian and military ticket stamped from the getgo.



Regarding that,



Staff Weenie said:


> That is when the PCP qualified Med Tech appeared in the Reg F. We (at the coal face) knew from the very outset that it was just not sustainable for a variety of reasons. PCP was seen as the one qual that was accepted (mostly) across Canada, allowing our pers to be posted, or employed on DOMOPS without too much difficulty. Reality was very different though, as has been noted above.











						Medics requiring to maintain a license
					

Doctors created a system where doctors hold higher rank and are in charge.  DGHS during Rx 2000 was Lise Mathieu...who was not a doc, but HSO via RN IIRC.   The "Surgeon General" was Scott Cameron, a mere Colonel then...whose 4 rings stacked up were as tall as he was.  Much like in civilian...




					army.ca


----------



## futurepensioner (7 Oct 2022)

To me this sounds like an "manage expectations" exercise.

Troubles seem to be brewing around the world.  When/if it finally blows up, Canada will have an out:

_*"Sorry we would really like to help, but we are in a "rebuilding phase".  Hopefully we will be in a position to make the playoffs next year"*_


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Oct 2022)

The RCN Specifically redesigned our training years ago for the Technical Trades under the mantra "TRAIN FOR THE FLEET NOT THE STREET".

In the 90's the NET and NWT trades were basically 1 credit short of a civilian technologist's diploma at the QL5 level.  (Missing a fluid power course and a physics  respectively) and at the QL6B level, the civilian accreditation organization in NS (Tech Nova or SCTNS) granted equivalency - all you had to do was pay the $250 a year for their membership.

Then things changed...that was deemed to be 'cadillac' training, and was apparently enabling too many sailors to jump ship after training to civvy street, so it was changed...and the courses were adjusted.

The last time the Civ group did an informal review of the W Eng Trade, they stated that they were not going to do a formal review, otherwise they'd go from 36 out of 37 credits, to less than 10 in terms of equivalency.

From my perspective, the RCN's dumbing down of technical trades knowledge and skills at the same time as the Halifax class get older and older is not a great plan.  I recall the work we had to do on steamers to keep them going as they neared the end of their lives - skilled technicians made that possible.  Now, the skilled technicians reside in the FMF's, and the state of the ships reflects how limited that resource is.

(Once upon a time, a LS NWT was trained to spin a lathe and manufacture replacement parts of the ship's gun.  In 2015, I couldn't find a single machinist on the ship, including the MSE side, who was able to produce a 2" long threaded, shouldered locking stud for the torpedo bridge crane.)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Oct 2022)

futurepensioner said:


> To me this sounds like an "manage expectations" exercise.
> 
> Troubles seem to be brewing around the world.  When/if it finally blows up, Canada will have an out:
> 
> _*"Sorry we would really like to help, but we are in a "rebuilding phase".  Hopefully we will be in a position to make the playoffs next year"*_


True,....but all we can offer right now is the best men and women in the world.   But that doesn't stop bullets, missiles,......

Mind you we'd go down knowing we finished a whole mess of woke online courses.


----------



## markppcli (7 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> The huge irony is that the CAF is providing strong incentives to its members to do your time in the military, and then retire (after 6 or 12 years) with a pile of cash to spend on upgrading your skills in areas like those you've just listed.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/education-and-jobs/back-to-school/education-training-benefit



I will never stop telling anyone I meet that works in Ottawa that the easiest way to strengthen the reserves / retain skills in the CAF is to amend this policy. I have multiple friends who’ve gotten out as Sgts and WOs, they are good instructors with tons of course and over a decade of experience, surely they would be a massive boon to any reserve unit they joint. That goes double for any of the techs we loose to the oils field after their second contract, imagine if they stayed in the reserves because they were being compensate for doing upgrades in their skills civie side? Simply put Let soldiers with 6-12 years access that program if they stay in the reserves so we aren’t loosing millions in training dollars.


----------



## KevinB (7 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> There are 24/7 sections that are required, but not Pri 1.


Roger I get that. The question I was answering at the time was Priority 1 though. 
    Very few entities have legitimate non deployed 24/7 requirements of dedicated (non revolving) staff.


----------



## Kilted (7 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> I will never stop telling anyone I meet that works in Ottawa that the easiest way to strengthen the reserves / retain skills in the CAF is to amend this policy. I have multiple friends who’ve gotten out as Sgts and WOs, they are good instructors with tons of course and over a decade of experience, surely they would be a massive boon to any reserve unit they joint. That goes double for any of the techs we loose to the oils field after their second contract, imagine if they stayed in the reserves because they were being compensate for doing upgrades in their skills civie side? Simply put Let soldiers with 6-12 years access that program if they stay in the reserves so we aren’t loosing millions in training dollars.


It would be nice if they would actually give the reserves the money they promised them for educational reimbursement, instead of shutting the program down for four years because "there was no money in the budget."  They did reopen it recently and I applied for it, was excepted, but told that I needed to apply on the new ILP platform and then told that I missed the deadline to apply when I applied on the new platform.


----------



## kev994 (7 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> I will never stop telling anyone I meet that works in Ottawa that the easiest way to strengthen the reserves / retain skills in the CAF is to amend this policy. I have multiple friends who’ve gotten out as Sgts and WOs, they are good instructors with tons of course and over a decade of experience, surely they would be a massive boon to any reserve unit they joint. That goes double for any of the techs we loose to the oils field after their second contract, imagine if they stayed in the reserves because they were being compensate for doing upgrades in their skills civie side? Simply put Let soldiers with 6-12 years access that program if they stay in the reserves so we aren’t loosing millions in training dollars.


I did a release interview not long ago, member was leaving to pursue their Masters, would have done Class A except that it would cost them $80,000. 🤯


----------



## markppcli (7 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> It would be nice if they would actually give the reserves the money they promised them for educational reimbursement, instead of shutting the program down for four years because "there was no money in the budget."  They did reopen it recently and I applied for it, was excepted, but told that I needed to apply on the new ILP platform and then told that I missed the deadline to apply when I applied on the new platform.


It’s not just the reserves. ILP is underfunded, and is not an absurd program that only reimburses for 1 course each month, ie it has to begin in that calendar month. Which is obviously just not how schools work.


----------



## Furniture (7 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Roger I get that. The question I was answering at the time was Priority 1 though.
> Very few entities have legitimate non deployed 24/7 requirements of dedicated (non revolving) staff.


That's fair. 

I happen to be from an organization that is 24/7, but not pri 1, not even 3, maybe somewhere near pri 32... until the OpsO learns that they won't have a TAF for their airfield.


----------



## kev994 (7 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> That's fair.
> 
> I happen to be from an organization that is 24/7, but not pri 1, not even 3, maybe somewhere near pri 32... until the OpsO learns that they won't have a TAF for their airfield.


The organization I was thinking of was the SAR units. A lot of the positions it takes ~a year, sometimes substantially more, to train someone to be operational but they’re holding a line number the whole time, so even if they’re fully staffed (and they aren’t) there’s still not enough people to fill all the scheduling holes, and it’s not an option to just not do it.


----------



## Kilted (7 Oct 2022)

So holding a giant Canadian Flag and singing the anthem at the Blue Jays is considered a critical task?


----------



## dapaterson (7 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> So holding a giant Canadian Flag and singing the anthem at the Blue Jays is considered a critical task?


Look, did anyone invade or attack Canada while the CAF did that?  Clearly, the deterrent effect was successful.


----------



## dimsum (7 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> At this point I tell everyone to use it (the CAF) for what it's worth and then take advantage of the entitlements 😁


Hell, I've been saying that for 20+ years.


----------



## FJAG (7 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> Regarding that,


When I mentioned the college paramedic program I wasn't think so much about nationwide certification for Med Techs (although that's good too) but the reverse for reservists.

Essentially have DND sponsor a student for paramedic training within a province to get certification within that province followed by an abbreviated military course to bring up to MedA standards. The person then can stay in his home province and work as a civilian paramedic while able to serve in a ResF Field Amb. The student gains a career and the CAF has a trained MA to call up on surge operations when needed.

While finding second careers for serving members is a good thing, what I'm more interested in is creating programs that motivate individuals to join the CAF (especially the ResF), get trained and certified in desired fields and stay around to be available as required.

One area that would really benefit is maintainers. What would be better than training light and heavy mechanics to a provincial ticket, then give them a year or two Class B working on our clapped out kit. Follow that with an obligatory two or three years Class A. The kid gets the training and experience to get a civvy job and we get worker bees for a year or two and then skilled and experienced mechanics in ResF maintenance battalions.

🍻


----------



## mariomike (7 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> When I mentioned the college paramedic program I wasn't think so much about nationwide certification for Med Techs (although that's good too) but the reverse for reservists.
> 
> Essentially have DND sponsor a student for paramedic training within a province to get certification within that province followed by an abbreviated military course to bring up to MedA standards. The person then can stay in his home province and work as a civilian paramedic while able to serve in a ResF Field Amb. The student gains a career and the CAF has a trained MA to call up on surge operations when needed.
> 
> ...



Sounds good. The collective agreement says this,

Military Leave 

24.09 (a) Leave of absence shall be granted to employees to serve in the Armed Forces during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada. Seniority will accumulate during such leave. 

24.09 (b) Leave of absence for Reserve training shall be in accordance with City policy as amended from time to time.









						Military Service
					

Policy Statement The City of Toronto supports employees who want to participate in the military reserve force and allows them to take a leave of absence to fulfill their reserve duties. Application All employees listed below are eligible for Military Service leave. Non-union employees CUPE local...




					www.toronto.ca


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Oct 2022)

NavyShooter said:


> The RCN Specifically redesigned our training years ago for the Technical Trades under the mantra "TRAIN FOR THE FLEET NOT THE STREET".
> 
> In the 90's the NET and NWT trades were basically 1 credit short of a civilian technologist's diploma at the QL5 level.  (Missing a fluid power course and a physics  respectively) and at the QL6B level, the civilian accreditation organization in NS (Tech Nova or SCTNS) granted equivalency - all you had to do was pay the $250 a year for their membership.
> 
> ...



« Train people well enough so they can leave. Treat them well enough so they don’t want to. »


----------



## Underway (8 Oct 2022)

So bringing this back to the actual impacts of the message released by the CDS...  For those who don't have access I'll try to Coles notes out some of the direction.  My interpretation is in yellow

1) CFRG and the School positions are the _primary focus _for the Career Managers.  - infered task, get people trained
2) Ceremonial aspects (parades etc...) are to be curtailed if they serve little function or are not core to the CAF - Remembrance day stays, change of command parade goes, ceremonial divisions "because we haven't had them in a while" goes
3) All L1's are directed to find positions that can be better filled with civilian and fill them with civilians, cut positions that haven't been filled in years, cut positions that make no sense -this seems self evident and should have been done years ago but getting positions removed is an admin nighmare as is hiring civi staff sometimes.  This direction _should_ help in getting the approvals necessary to do that work
4)  L1's are directed to get rid of dumb tasks that add no value to the CAF -I can think of about 15 different admin tasks that are done on ship that can be jettisoned.  War diary, fair nav log, all the extra secondary duties that take away from the primary duties and don't add value...
5)  Stop doing operations that are low value  -this is a big one for the RCN, its spells the death knell for OP CARIBE, which in turn changes the posting focus to the ships that are doing both force generation AND operations (something the army in particular has a harder time doing concurrently).  Which means OP PROJECTION, OP REASURANCE are still going to be a thing.  BUT it also means that the ships on the road to high readyness _should_ have enough people to properly fill out the crews (or at least more people).  For engineering this is critical moreso than Ops (who can work on simulators and such to keep their skills sharp).  It also means AOPS will be a priority posting as well, as forcegen for that platform is in its infancy.  I expect the rest of the CAF to cut operations with a small footprint that are not critical. 
6) A bunch of more L1 planning direction that basically says MTF on this issue.

How does this solve the problem?  Well first it doesn't per say but it properly acknowledges the problem (step 1).  Second it recognizes that recruiting and the schools need help (plenty of empty positions in those orgs, no reason we can't bulk them up), so start filling in the training gaps.  Third it empowers the L1's to take long overdue action to reorganize their formations to match what they actually do/should look like instead of what the paper says they should look like.

The one negative impact I see with this that jumps out immediately is that filling positions with civilian staff inevitably means miliary who retire and then do the same job in civi clothes the following monday.  So it might exacerbate the problem in the short term. _edit- the more I think about this impact the more it might be considered a side grade.  The job is still being done, and in some cases better, as corporate knowledge will be retained past three years, though that pers is not unavailable for postings elsewhere._


----------



## kev994 (8 Oct 2022)

The most important tidbit (IMO) is a little note that says that nobody can make a DLN course mandatory for other commands except the CDS or the DM. It’s about time.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Oct 2022)

I think we need a DLN course on who is authorized to create and impose a DLN course, that's mandatory for everyone.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (8 Oct 2022)

I have to hand it to the CDS for actually calling out the L1s on their BS. It's been a long time coming honestly


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> 3) All L1's are directed to find positions that can be better filled with civilian and fill them with civilians, cut positions that haven't been filled in years, cut positions that make no sense -this seems self evident and should have been done years ago but getting positions removed is an admin nighmare as is hiring civi staff sometimes.  This direction _should_ help in getting the approvals necessary to do that work
> 4)  L1's are directed to get rid of dumb tasks that add no value to the CAF -I can think of about 15 different admin tasks that are done on ship that can be jettisoned.  War diary, fair nav log, all the extra secondary duties that take away from the primary duties and don't add value...



Lots of positions have been vacant for years and we are getting killed by it; things like frontline LCMM and procurement jobs shouldn't be cut just because they are empty. It takes 3-5 years to build the basic experience so not feasible to plug with military.

Btw, there is now a hiring freeze. Even if you could find people (that don't exist) for the civilian jobs, we may not have SWE to fill it. For improving training that may also require creating new positions, so they are telling us to make magic happen while limiting tools.

A lot of 'dumb tasks' are coming from outside the CAF. Some top end support for pushback for TBS etc against new procurement requirements applying to all procurements, or things like the SBCA kicking in at $20M would be more use than dropping random secondary duties if they want to make real changes at the CAF level.


----------



## KevinB (8 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> « Train people well enough so they can leave. Treat them well enough so they don’t want to. »


110%


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> So bringing this back to the actual impacts of the message released by the CDS...  For those who don't have access I'll try to Coles notes out some of the direction.  My interpretation is in yellow
> 
> 1) CFRG and the School positions are the _primary focus _for the Career Managers.  - infered task, get people trained
> 2) Ceremonial aspects (parades etc...) are to be curtailed if they serve little function or are not core to the CAF - Remembrance day stays, change of command parade goes, ceremonial divisions "because we haven't had them in a while" goes
> ...



I'm not so sure. Our UK friends had - maybe (likely) still have - a bunch of positions marked RO - Retired Officer.

I was a director in a job that could, perhaps should have been a civil service job ... except that it *required *a fair bit of military judgment and, in our system in the 1980s, we found it very, very difficult to hire a civil servant when there was a hard requirement for military skills and knowledge. The problem was (still is?) a mix of civil service and military reluctance. I eventually, 1990s, converted my deputy director from a LCol to and ENG05; it was a looooong (3 years) uphill battle against both uniformed and civilian opposition. The military (my branch) didn't want to lose a LCol's position and the civil service didn't want to approve a position the *required* relevant and recent military training and experience.

The UK had no such problem. My counterpart in their MOD was a Group Captain [Col] (RO). The RO designation meant he was a civil servant and could expect to be in that job for five to 15 years (two or three 'normal' military tour lengths). The selected officer could be a recently retired suitable Cdr/LCol/WgCdr, a Capt(N)/Col/GpCapt or a Cmdre/Brig/AC. The MOD, NOT the civl service, did the selection BUT the officer had to retire (if not already retired) and be accepted into the civil service (a formality, I think) before taking up her or his post.

There were quite a few of them in the MOD - radio spectrum, for sure, ComSec, too, I'm about 99.9% sure and several others in tech fields. It seemed to work for them.


----------



## Underway (8 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Lots of positions have been vacant for years and we are getting killed by it; things like frontline LCMM and procurement jobs shouldn't be cut just because they are empty. It takes 3-5 years to build the basic experience so not feasible to plug with military.
> 
> Btw, there is now a hiring freeze. Even if you could find people (that don't exist) for the civilian jobs, we may not have SWE to fill it. For improving training that may also require creating new positions, so they are telling us to make magic happen while limiting tools.
> 
> A lot of 'dumb tasks' are coming from outside the CAF. Some top end support for pushback for TBS etc against new procurement requirements applying to all procurements, or things like the SBCA kicking in at $20M would be more use than dropping random secondary duties if they want to make real changes at the CAF level.


Didn't say it was easy.  But we both can point to a half dozen positions in our current lines that really don't need to be there (and probably people who are in them that don't need to be there either).  Consolidation and justification need to be looked at.  I didn't read the direction as "if its vacant bin it" more of a take a good look and prioritize.


----------



## Weinie (8 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> Didn't say it was easy.  But we both can point to a half dozen positions in our current lines that really don't need to be there (and probably people who are in them that don't need to be there either).  Consolidation and justification need to be looked at.  I didn't read the direction as "if its vacant bin it" more of a take a good look and prioritize.


How many of these positions r because we have to report, because of X *finding.*  When I joined the Army, we were largely able to set our course. Now, it is whatever is the focus of the moment,  and because there is a requirement to submit "X" ,Y", and "Z:" reports.
Until we unfuck ourselves from this, we r stuck in the bureaucracy that  imposes itself on us. And unfortunately, we will still need staff officers to deal with this bullshit.


----------



## Underway (8 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> How many of these positions r because we have to report, because of X *finding.*  When I joined the Army, we were largely able to set our course. Now, it is whatever is the focus of the moment,  and because there is a requirement to submit "X" ,Y", and "Z:" reports.
> Until we unfuck ourselves from this, we r stuck in the bureaucracy that  imposes itself on us. And unfortunately, we will still need staff officers to deal with this bullshit


Not arguing.  Like I said, not easy.  But before we hit full on _unrecoverable_ for things we need to take action, even if it slows down the leak. X finding jobs are going to be the first to go IMHO.  Like all things military new priorities are overwriting old priorities.  Some of those XYZ reports are legacy and don't need to be done anymore, or god forbid, be done in a different way that doesn't require tons of admin.


----------



## Weinie (8 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> Not arguing.  Like I said, not easy.  But before we hit full on _unrecoverable_ for things we need to take action, even if it slows down the leak. X finding jobs are going to be the first to go IMHO.  Like all things military new priorities are overwriting old priorities.  Some of those XYZ reports are legacy and don't need to be done anymore, or god forbid, be done in a different way that doesn't require tons of admin.


You are young in the Force. May the Force be with you.


----------



## dimsum (8 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> So bringing this back to the actual impacts of the message released by the CDS...  For those who don't have access I'll try to Coles notes out some of the direction.  My interpretation is in yellow
> 
> 1) CFRG and the School positions are the _primary focus _for the Career Managers.  - infered task, get people trained
> 2) Ceremonial aspects (parades etc...) are to be curtailed if they serve little function or are not core to the CAF - Remembrance day stays, change of command parade goes, ceremonial divisions "because we haven't had them in a while" goes
> ...


Re:  Your Point 5 (stop doing ops that are low value)

I can foresee the RCAF getting into some heated arguments with the CA and RCN, such as below.  These are completely made up.

CA thinks Maple Resolve (or something like that) is high value because of trg.  RCAF doesn't think it's the best use of its Tac Hel sqns
RCN thinks OP PROJECTION is valuable while there is an SNMG 1 (can't remember the operation name) also going on.  RCAF doesn't agree that PROJECTION is as valuable as SNMG 1 so it doesn't want to send a Cyclone det.
In those cases, who makes the final call?  Would the other services go without RCAF support in those instances?


----------



## Weinie (8 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> Re:  Your Point 5 (stop doing ops that are low value)
> 
> I can foresee the RCAF getting into some heated arguments with the CA and RCN, such as below.  These are completely made up.
> 
> ...


The CDS. Lets get back to basics, people.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> The most important tidbit (IMO) is a little note that says that nobody can make a DLN course mandatory for other commands except the CDS or the DM. It’s about time.


Which para?


----------



## Haggis (8 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have to hand it to the CDS for actually calling out the L1s on their BS. It's been a long time coming honestly


A new CDS will be along in 24 to 30 months.  Possibly a new government, too, which will have even less interest in defence, particularly if it interferes with their woke green agenda.  All the L1s and their mandarins have to do is delay, deny, distract and deceive until a new boss is appointed who they like, as per SOP.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> A new CDS will be along in 24 to 30 months.  Possibly a new government, too, which will have even less interest in defence, particularly if it interferes with their woke green agenda.  All the L1s and their mandarins have to do is delay, deny, distract and deceive until a new boss is appointed who they like, as per SOP.


The CAF is screwed.  It's not going to get better, this is just acknowledgement that it's going to trend downward.

The bill for massive deficit spending and economic malaise is going to be coming due and that will be the Government's primary concern.


----------



## kev994 (8 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Which para?


Under Mission/Execution Para 14

FAs are to review and validate all currently mandated training, including periodicity, in consultation with CMP, ADM(HR-Civ), and the Defence Team People Management Committee (DT-PMC)as appropriate, and submit a detailed business case to CDS/DM for approval with respect to any new mandated training for DND employees and/or CAF members that affects other or all L1s. Unrestricted growth of online training results in a large aggregate drain on workforce to accomplish priority efforts. Risk must be appropriately weighed to ensure that Defence Team members’ time is not treated as an unconstrained resource;

Assuming I’m reading the right document





						CDS/DM Directive for CAF Reconstitution - Canada.ca
					

This directive will set in motion a significant body of work that will provide direction on the course corrections that are required to overcome deficiencies that are hampering the composition and readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).




					www.canada.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> Under Mission/Execution Para 14
> 
> FAs are to review and validate all currently mandated training, including periodicity, in consultation with CMP, ADM(HR-Civ), and the Defence Team People Management Committee (DT-PMC)as appropriate, and submit a detailed business case to CDS/DM for approval with respect to any new mandated training for DND employees and/or CAF members that affects other or all L1s. Unrestricted growth of online training results in a large aggregate drain on workforce to accomplish priority efforts. Risk must be appropriately weighed to ensure that Defence Team members’ time is not treated as an unconstrained resource;
> 
> ...



That's going to take alot of time, ironically.

Just sayin'


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> That's going to take alot of time, ironically.
> 
> Just sayin'


I have already semi-given up on the 50 some odd « mandatory » courses we all need to do. I told my folks to do them if they have time at work.  Otherwise, not a big deal and I’ll let them know which ones are more important.

Some folks were doing them on weekends.  Not worth spending their personal time doing courses with extremely (if of any) limited value to their day-to-day jobs and development.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I have already semi-given up on the 50 some odd « mandatory » courses we all need to do. I told my folks to do them if they have time at work.  Otherwise, not a big deal and I’ll let them know which ones are more important.
> 
> Some folks were doing them on weekends.  Not worth spending their personal time doing courses with extremely (if of any) limited value to their day-to-day jobs and development.


----------



## Fabius (8 Oct 2022)

Reading the entire “order” I can’t help but feel this is more of a Commanders Planning Guidance document than an order. Semantics perhaps I know but through it seems like most items are short details or ideas and heavy on buzz words. 
Ie. “Rapidly Grow”, “Implement a pers management system that attracts and retains” “broaden diversity” “ensure we are a employer of choice” “deliver operations within resources”

Again perhaps I am being critical but all the actual tasks can be boiled down to saying figure it out and let us know. I don’t see that achieving much especially when CAF modernization seems to be specially excluded as outside the scope of reconstitution. 

Overall I think I am perhaps too critical of this document but it seems rather open ended and unspecific right now until all the L1s do something. 

If history is an indication the L1s will be busy building power point decks outlining how current processes and programs are achieving these items and how they have already taken steps to meet the words contained in the document.


----------



## kev994 (8 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> That's going to take alot of time, ironically.
> 
> Just sayin'


It will take a lot of time for a handful of people, but the opposite is much worse, eg a 3 day course mandatory for 100,000 people uses an absurd amount of person-hours.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Oct 2022)

Working in the Army HQ, I once pointed out to my boss that a "single simple question that will take an hour to answer by reserve units" sent to the four divisions, to the ten brigades, to ~150 units, back to 10 bdes, back to 4 divs, back to the Army HQ just took close to 180 hours of work - or more than a full month for one person full time.  Me spending 2-3 days data mining to get the same answer was much more efficient.

(And also avoided letting each of those points through the chain add their own spin / change to the question, and thus ensured a common standard for the data).


----------



## kev994 (8 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Working in the Army HQ, I once pointed out to my boss that a "single simple question that will take an hour to answer by reserve units" sent to the four divisions, to the ten brigades, to ~150 units, back to 10 bdes, back to 4 divs, back to the Army HQ just took close to 180 hours of work - or more than a full month for one person full time.  Me spending 2-3 days data mining to get the same answer was much more efficient.
> 
> (And also avoided letting each of those points through the chain add their own spin / change to the question, and thus ensured a common standard for the data).


I wish everyone knew that, usually on the way down it sits in someone’s inbox for a week, then someone else needs an answer before they go on leave so they can pass it on, by the time it gets to the unit there’s a couple hours left to answer it when the big head gave ~3 months at the start of the email chain. You can get a quick answer, or a well researched answer, but not both.


----------



## FJAG (8 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> A new CDS will be along in 24 to 30 months. Possibly a new government, too, which will have even less interest in defence, particularly if it interferes with their woke green agenda.


Is Chretien coming back?


😖 😟


----------



## Haggis (8 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Is Chretien coming back?
> 
> 
> 😖 😟


No, but Trudeau's not leaving.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (8 Oct 2022)

Haggis said:


> No, but Trudeau's not leaving.


Not of his own volition at least. 

The NDP are getting antsy at Trudeau crossing the line and they can easily trigger an election   

The LPC big heads might have a different timeline than Le Dauphin and may desire new blood is best before the next election. 

The voting public always have their say too. A snap election was Trudeau's hope to regain majority status, but he read the tea leaves wrong and here we are.

Events are funny like that....


----------



## dapaterson (8 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> A snap election was Trudeau's hope to regain majority status, but he read the tea leaves wrong and here we are.


Or read the leaves right to maintain a minority government; another 9 months or so and we might have had an O'Toole minority government.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Or read the leaves right to maintain a minority government; another 9 months or so and we might have had an O'Toole minority government.


----------



## ueo (9 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> I'm not so sure. Our UK friends had - maybe (likely) still have - a bunch of positions marked RO - Retired Officer.
> 
> I was a director in a job that could, perhaps should have been a civil service job ... except that it *required *a fair bit of military judgment and, in our system in the 1980s, we found it very, very difficult to hire a civil servant when there was a hard requirement for military skills and knowledge. The problem was (still is?) a mix of civil service and military reluctance. I eventually, 1990s, converted my deputy director from a LCol to and ENG05; it was a looooong (3 years) uphill battle against both uniformed and civilian opposition. The military (my branch) didn't want to lose a LCol's position and the civil service didn't want to approve a position the *required* relevant and recent military training and experience.
> 
> ...


*Back then recruiting was run by a civilian. Things ran relatively smoothly. Applicants were processed in 3-5 days, problems/hickups dealt withh by phone direct to him. Slick as snot on a hens upper lip, then came the everongoing QLM/ QLC/??? parade. All went to rat sh^t almost over night. Initial perp- an Adml who drank the american cool aid.*


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Oct 2022)

Fabius said:


> Reading the entire “order” I can’t help but feel this is more of a Commanders Planning Guidance document than an order. Semantics perhaps I know but through it seems like most items are short details or ideas and heavy on buzz words.
> Ie. “Rapidly Grow”, “Implement a pers management system that attracts and retains” “broaden diversity” “ensure we are a employer of choice” “deliver operations within resources”
> 
> Again perhaps I am being critical but all the actual tasks can be boiled down to saying figure it out and let us know. I don’t see that achieving much especially when CAF modernization seems to be specially excluded as outside the scope of reconstitution.
> ...


I felt a strong tinge of cynicism reading that preamble as well. The CAF has been trying to increase recruiting and failing for years (decades?) so what will change now?

Also if they do succeed, we don't have infrastructure, qualified, competent instructors or even courses set up to do that in the short term.

Weirdly it takes time to train people to be competent instructors, and they need things like class rooms, training materials etc. The schools are running at capacity. so even if we somehow get a bunch of recruits a whack of post BMQ PATs isn't in anyone's interest. The only way to relatively quickly increase throughput is to go back to having college programs with a small delta training at the end, but we've killed all those. Those will take years to set up again.


----------



## GR66 (9 Oct 2022)

The training system clearly needs some serious fixing (and there have been good suggestions about leveraging civilian schools for the non-military specific portions of the training) but we also have to recognize that personnel costs are a major portion of the Defence budget.  At the same time as we are improving the training system (and better promoting the CAF to attract more applicants) we should also be looking at how we can use technology to reduce the number of full-time pers we need to operate (both peacetime and wartime functions) and also fix the Reserves so that we can have effective part-timers as part of the system.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (9 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> The training system clearly needs some serious fixing (and there have been good suggestions about leveraging civilian schools for the non-military specific portions of the training) but we also have to recognize that personnel costs are a major portion of the Defence budget.  At the same time as we are improving the training system (and better promoting the CAF to attract more applicants) we should also be looking at how we can use technology to reduce the number of full-time pers we need to operate (both peacetime and wartime functions) and also fix the Reserves so that we can have effective part-timers as part of the system.


Having been involved in one of the most "technologically forward" Corps within the CA, the concept that we can automate processes scares most people above the rank of Major/MWO. This isn't even just combat arms or combat support types; this is CSS and HQ support folks. 

We have a long way to go to get that level of buy in to see the "more teeth, less tail" benefits you speak of.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2022)

If God meant for me to trust reports on a computer, he never would have invented paper, a clipboard and a pencil.


----------



## MJP (9 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Having been involved in one of the most "technologically forward" Corps within the CA, the concept that we can automate processes scares most people above the rank of Major/MWO. This isn't even just combat arms or combat support types; this is CSS and HQ support folks.
> 
> We have a long way to go to get that level of buy in to see the "more teeth, less tail" benefits you speak of.


I hear ya, work in an area that is rife for exploitations (in a good way) for robotic process automation.  We are moving forward with doing some test cases but across the CAF there is a lack of knowledge and perhaps misunderstanding what RPA is and what it can do.  Add in a bureaucracy where getting the software approved and linked in to our system takes eons plus we generally have to contract out the initial RPA programming makes it a slow slog.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> The training system clearly needs some serious fixing (and there have been good suggestions about leveraging civilian schools for the non-military specific portions of the training) but we also have to recognize that personnel costs are a major portion of the Defence budget.  At the same time as we are improving the training system (and better promoting the CAF to attract more applicants) we should also be looking at how we can use technology to reduce the number of full-time pers we need to operate (both peacetime and wartime functions) and also fix the Reserves so that we can have effective part-timers as part of the system.



I've always thought, for my trade, we really don't need beginner trades training. 

I truly think we would be better off giving our new MMTs an OJT package and send them on their way for their superiors and units to process.

For my trade our school is habitually behind the ball when it comes to current training.  And much of what they teach and preach really isn't the way our business is conducted in the real world. Minus if course the field filling use of DRIMS, which in itself is just an exercise in repetition.

We should have specialized courses, for building a planning warehousing and environmental specific specialties and procurement, for some example.

And I don't not believe we need the school to facilitate this. Much of this could be pushed out to 2nd and 3rd line entities with central oversight and QA coming from the school.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Oct 2022)

MJP said:


> I hear ya, work in an area that is rife for exploitations (in a good way) for robotic process automation.  We are moving forward with doing some test cases but across the CAF there is a lack of knowledge and perhaps misunderstanding what RPA is and what it can do.  Add in a bureaucracy where getting the software approved and linked in to our system takes eons plus we generally have to contract out the initial RPA programming makes it a slow slog.


Generally even the Public Service fails at automating and hiring. Hiring a person into the PS is about 6 months when I retired, I don't think it's much better now. We ran SYEP courses through the summer at the units in the Lower mainland with about 40 recruits in each. Gave them a basic intro to the Army. Quite a few stayed on and became great soldiers and that was back in the days when pay sucked and you signed pink paysheets in the hopes that you get paid if there was any money left in the budget.


----------



## MJP (9 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Generally even the Public Service fails at automating and hiring. Hiring a person into the PS is about 6 months when I retired, I don't think it's much better now. We ran SYEP courses through the summer at the units in the Lower mainland with about 40 recruits in each. Gave them a basic intro to the Army. Quite a few stayed on and became great soldiers and that was back in the days when pay sucked and you signed pink paysheets in the hopes that you get paid if there was any money left in the budget.


No it is still slow.  But I wasn't saying we should be using RPA for hiring, although there are likely some use cases that it could work for

I was saying that RPA and other automation would be able to do some things that we currently have umpteen people doing (and failing at), reinforcing @GR66's and @rmc_wannabe's points on tech.

The downfall is new tech is hard and we don't have the skill sets to exploit or the the mechanisms to bring it in in a timely fashion.


----------



## dimsum (9 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> the concept that we can automate processes scares most people above the rank of Major/MWO.


Is that a service culture thing, or a generational culture thing?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (9 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> Is that a service culture thing, or a generational culture thing?


It's both, to be frank.









						Digital native - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Whereas industry will specifically seek out digital natives for innovation programs and policy, the CAF doesn't really.

A lot of our policies, doctrine, and procurement is based around "this is proven and it works." With limited funds for development and innovation, we don't have the ability to really get ahead of the curve on most things like industry. In civilian companies, you spend the money to innovate faster and better than your competitors; otherwise you become irrelevant and are on the back foot when the next big thing takes over.

Where I see the fix happening in the CAF is getting our collective heads out of our asses and becoming more open to change. Everyone at all levels is guilty of developing TTPs, SOPs, Doctrine, and Policies based on proven experience, but not bending when the next logical advancement moves forward.

Finally, we need look at Tech aversion as Risk averison with strategic consequences. It's all well and good that you trust your map and compass more than the GPS, but all those GBAD, UAS, HIMARS, etc. need a robust GPS/Data backbone to integrate with one another. Same thing with stuff like LCSS and other sensors. We can play broken telephone for 15 minutes with the hope that we retain the initiative; or we can automate to the point that we aren't having that kind of lag happen when it counts.

If the Russo-Ukrainian War has cemented anything, it's that having the edge in 21st century warfare is being able to out think rather than out maneuver your enemy. That is allowing machines, computers, sensors, and other forms of IO to streamline the OODA loop.

If Col Bloggins doesn't like the look and feel of it as opposed to what he trained on in 1995 on Phase 3 Inf training, adapt or become irrelevant


----------



## Fabius (9 Oct 2022)

I think it’s primarily a service culture thing reinforced by some generational culture but truly reinforced by an institutional inability to modernize effectively our information systems. 

Key examples are:

Email vs Memos and electronic leave passes vs paper butting up against units having almost no computers below Sect Comd and no computer labs or allocation for computers to fill said Lab.  Note this is maybe changing with items like PACE but that it still not supported by actual computers and PKI cards are an issue for some items. 

SharePoint vs Unit M Drives and a deep resistance and concern over adopting a open to all information environment vs a closed highly restrictive information environment. We have been unable to effectively move to a SharePoint system despite almost a decade of trying. Information Mangement is generally regarded as an afterthought and given either as a secondary job or too a brand new 2Lt.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Oct 2022)

Fabius said:


> I think it’s primarily a service culture thing reinforced by some generational culture but truly reinforced by an institutional inability to modernize effectively our information systems.
> 
> Key examples are:
> 
> ...



Paysheets enter the chat and go...


----------



## Fabius (9 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> If the Russo-Ukrainian War has cemented anything, it's that having the edge in 21st century warfare is being able to out think rather than out maneuver your enemy. That is allowing machines, computers, sensors, and other forms of IO to streamline the OODA loop.


This seems to be almost the opposite of what the Cdn Army is taking from it though or at least from 2014 onwards. Concern over Russia EW has seen the US double down on their C4ISR and hardening the systems while we at a Bn level have reintroduced dispatch riders and flags to communicate while becoming more skeptics of the electronic footprint of modern battle management systems.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (9 Oct 2022)

Fabius said:


> This seems to be almost the opposite of what the Cdn Army is taking from it though or at least from 2014 onwards. Concern over Russia EW has seen the US double down on their C4ISR and hardening the systems while we at a Bn level have reintroduced dispatch riders and flags to communicate while becoming more skeptics of the electronic footprint of modern battle management systems.


I have had to reel in some folks IRT using SDS/SDR in their PACE planning because they don't seem to realize that although you gain security from an EW standpoint, you're opening yourself up much more to traditional data loss: enemy capture, human loss, drain on personnel and vehicle resources, and a lot of other things going dark (ISTAR, C4ISR, etc.)

Going EMCON 1 is not a solution in a modern battle space. The enemy has had eyes on you since before you arrived in theatre. It's better to harden your systems, act faster than your adversary, and deny him the same freedom of movement in the Information Domain than pretend shrinking your Electromagnetic Spectrum footprint will somehow make you less noticeable. 

It's the same thing as Wile E. Coyote putting up a parasol when the Boulder is about to drop on his head.


----------



## dimsum (9 Oct 2022)

Maybe it's the CA being able to use dispatch riders, etc as backup - it's not a good thing, but it's a thing.

Whereas in the RCAF, I've seen an understanding that the service (and CAF as a whole) need to modernize.  Maybe it's because the RCAF has generally the most tech-heavy and tech-advanced assets. 

But I've heard the issue with CA's unwillingness to modernize before.  A friend went from a technical project in the RCAF to being a DND civ in a similar technical project in the CA.  He said that the biggest difference (aside from the systems themselves, obviously) is that the RCAF folks listen and acknowledge the requirement and implications if it's not done, whereas the CA folks ignore it.


----------



## GR66 (9 Oct 2022)

We are an expeditionary military.  How much of the actual force can expect to be realistically deployed?  What units?  A great deal of organization (and PYs) are spent just running the CAF as an organization in peacetime.  What efficiencies can be found there?  Do all of those people really require the wage premium of serving with unlimited liability?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (9 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> Maybe it's the CA being able to use dispatch riders, etc as backup - it's not a good thing, but it's a thing.
> 
> Whereas in the RCAF, I've seen an understanding that the service (and CAF as a whole) need to modernize.  Maybe it's because the RCAF has generally the most tech-heavy and tech-advanced assets.
> 
> But I've heard the issue with CA's unwillingness to modernize before.  A friend went from a technical project in the RCAF to being a DND civ in a similar technical project in the CA.  He said that the biggest difference (aside from the systems themselves, obviously) is that the RCAF folks listen and acknowledge the requirement and implications if it's not done, whereas the CA folks ignore it.


I think it's definitely a cultural thing within the CA.

The RCAF and RCN never really deviated from their core mandates over the past 20 years and have adopted new technologies to maintain that logical flow.

The CA got distracted in the 90s with the "Peacekeeping forever" missions and then the "COIN is the new Peacemaking" craze in Afghanistan. Now that we are at the point where things are a lot more conventional/peer-to-peer than they have been, we're seeing a lot of "back to our roots" thinking within our tactics and doctrine. 

The huge problem is that its no longer 1986, we're no longer chasing the Soviets out of the Fulda Gap, and even if we hadn't divested the vast majority of our conventional capabilities in the past 35 years; they'd all be obsolete in the face of modern advancements. 

So until we get folks on AOC redoing the Red Team book to make it relevant to real world experiences i  the past 8 years, we're going to have a rough go of it modernizing our way of thinking.


----------



## dimsum (9 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> We are an expeditionary military.  How much of the actual force can expect to be realistically deployed?  What units?


I think it would be easier to figure out what units/trades are _not_ meant to be deployed.



GR66 said:


> A great deal of organization (and PYs) are spent just running the CAF as an organization in peacetime.  What efficiencies can be found there?  Do all of those people really require the wage premium of serving with unlimited liability?


The PRes is now 92% (I think) salary of the Reg F.  

Cynical me would say to return to 85% for PRes, and take the money you would have saved from the drop from 92% as an "incentive" for folks to be in the Reg F and be post-able.  

You want to settle somewhere and not be posted?  Ok - as long as you're making 85% of the folks who are willing to be posted.  Also, if you joined in your home town and are on this no-posting scheme, you don't get PLD (or whatever the newest iteration will be) because you never had to buy/sell a home due to the CAF, and you don't get to use CAF medical/dental services.  

For the folks who will inevitablly whinge about them getting paid less and lose those benefits/services - they will never be posted, their spouses will continue to accrue seniority, and they don't lose money buying/selling/renting on postings.  

No, I have no idea how that would work, or if it's even legal.  I wonder if I should post that on CAF Reddit and watch the fireworks.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think it would be easier to figure out what units/trades are _not_ meant to be deployed.
> 
> 
> The PRes is now 92% (I think) salary of the Reg F.
> ...



There are parts of that the Journey program are/were supposed to address.

One suggestion and one question.

Suggestions:
Along with lower pay there should be no rank advancement if one is not willing to fully embrace the CAF lifestyle/career and accept geographic posting.

Question:
What do you do when everyone/vast majority opts for geographic stability?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Question:
> What do you do when everyone/vast majority opts for geographic stability?


Assess why that is.  Find incentives and/or change systems.

Or stay in a 1950s manpower model.  How's that working out?


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Assess why that is.  Find incentives and/or change systems.
> 
> Or stay in a 1950s manpower model.  How's that working out?



I get it and I'm onside.  I'm not trying to be obstrepirous. 

Right now most trades depend on the posting cycle, and retirements, to facilitate space and availability for promotions.  The largest branch in the CAF with the widest variations of posting possibilities, Log NCM, depends on all this to create renewal, generate new leaders and make promotions possible.

Saying we will cross that bridge when we get to it isn't good enough in this case.  We need to have a COA in place and maybe various depending on % volume who opt for geographic stability.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (9 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Or stay in a 1950s manpower model.  How's that working out?


"You mean women have opinions? And careers?! Who let that happen?!"


----------



## FJAG (9 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think it would be easier to figure out what units/trades are _not_ meant to be deployed.


If universality of service is to mean anything then every trade, every person is meant to be deployed be they RegF or ResF for as long as ss. 31 and 33 of the NDA stays worded the way they are.



dimsum said:


> The PRes is now 92% (I think) salary of the Reg F.
> 
> Cynical me would say to return to 85% for PRes, and take the money you would have saved from the drop from 92% as an "incentive" for folks to be in the Reg F and be post-able.
> 
> You want to settle somewhere and not be posted?  Ok - as long as you're making 85% of the folks who are willing to be posted.  Also, if you joined in your home town and are on this no-posting scheme, you don't get PLD (or whatever the newest iteration will be) because you never had to buy/sell a home due to the CAF, and you don't get to use CAF medical/dental services.


Even when I was in on the RegF side I could never understand this fetish about tying pay to the notion of postings. I presume it arose out of the fact that the CAF unnecessarily shuffles people around from pillar to post into places inhabited only by deer and bears. Honestly guys, it not a d*ck measuring contest.

People get paid for the level of skill they've developed and the time they spend working at it. Reservists already earn a small fraction of what the Regs do due to the number of days a year they work. On top of that RegF get sports days, short leave, and sweeping the gun park floor days etc etc.

There used to be sayings about a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.


dimsum said:


> For the folks who will inevitablly whinge about them getting paid less and lose those benefits/services - they will never be posted, their spouses will continue to accrue seniority, and they don't lose money buying/selling/renting on postings.


How does that matter vis a vis military pay. Wouldn't it be an advantage to RegF retention if the leadership used a few of their brain cells to figure out a career profile that would make that possible for the average RegF soldier rather than try to figure out a way to create a disincentive to people who are prepared to work as a civilian and use a large portion off their spare time to to serve their country? To give up vacation times with the family to go on exercises in some mosquito hell hole?



dimsum said:


> No, I have no idea how that would work, or if it's even legal.  I wonder if I should post that on CAF Reddit and watch the fireworks.


You don't need to go to Reddit for it. 🎆

Get back to the basic issue which is to fill the military with valuable soldiers. Wouldn't it benefit the force tremendously if you converted a large part of it to working part-time so that the costs in personnel savings could be converted to finally be used to buy equipment. And if they stayed in the CAF for quite a while because they were able to live a balanced life with their family?

Last thought ... one which will spark fireworks here ... a military that does not have the equipment nor the capability to fight a serious war to defend its country's sovereignty is at best a high priced make-work project and at worst a uniformed bureaucratic welfare system.

Let the 🎇 begin!

🍻


----------



## dimsum (9 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Get back to the basic issue which is to fill the military with valuable soldiers. Wouldn't it benefit the force tremendously if you converted a large part of it to working part-time so that the costs in personnel savings could be converted to finally be used to buy equipment. And if they stayed in the CAF for quite a while because they were able to live a balanced life with their family?


Or, another option - let people live wherever, but they do month-long (or whatever) stints, like Fort Mac.

How they get there is up to them.  You're "posted" to Shilo but want to live in Halifax?  Sure - just make sure you're in Shilo during your allotted days.

The RCAF is in the process of doing this, but the ADF has different rates of pay depending on trade - so, a Cook is paid differently than an HRA, for example.  That, plus "incentive" money for postings like Cold Lake, may help.

The issue is that this current model is not working.  I'm not saying because it's what the people are saying on CAF Reddit.  I know many people between the 6 and 20 year mark that are seriously looking at pulling pin.  It's one thing if someone does one IE and decides it's not for them, but it's something else for someone with 20 years in to not do the extra 5 for pension.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Oct 2022)

I’d take these folks for fed govt over what we have now…


Navy_Pete said:


> I felt a strong tinge of cynicism reading that preamble as well. The CAF has been trying to increase recruiting and failing for years (decades?) so what will change now?
> 
> Also if they do succeed, we don't have infrastructure, qualified, competent instructors or even courses set up to do that in the short term.
> 
> Weirdly it takes time to train people to be competent instructors, and they need things like class rooms, training materials etc. The schools are running at capacity. so even if we somehow get a bunch of recruits a whack of post BMQ PATs isn't in anyone's interest. The only way to relatively quickly increase throughput is to go back to having college programs with a small delta training at the end, but we've killed all those. Those will take years to set up again.



The can re-inflate the PRETC carnival bouncy house…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’d take these folks for fed govt over what we have now…
> 
> 
> The can re-inflate the PRETC carnival bouncy house…


I hear Dundurn is under utilized…shacks…classrooms…training area…just sayin…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Oct 2022)




----------



## Furniture (9 Oct 2022)

So far the best idea has been make everyone a reservist, and task them to Dundurn... No wonder the CAF is struggling to attract quality recruits.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> So far the best idea has been make everyone a reservist, and task them to Dundurn... No wonder the CAF is struggling to attract quality recruits.


Don’t knock Dundurn until you’ve tried it…


----------



## FJAG (9 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> The issue is that this current model is not working. I'm not saying because it's what the people are saying on CAF Reddit. I know many people between the 6 and 20 year mark that are seriously looking at pulling pin. It's one thing if someone does one IE and decides it's not for them, but it's something else for someone with 20 years in to not do the extra 5 for pension.


I was one of them. At ten years I was looking for something else and when MLTP didn't open up for two years straight 9D and I had to make a choice. Haven't looked back since.

It's not that I didn't like the CAF. I liked it enough to stay as a reservist for another 24 years. 

Just thinking - if they'd had that education option back then I would have had to quit outright to get it and then try to get back in - madness.

🍻


----------



## QV (10 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> If universality of service is to mean anything then every trade, every person is meant to be deployed be they RegF or ResF for as long as ss. 31 and 33 of the NDA stays worded the way they are.
> 
> 
> Even when I was in on the RegF side I could never understand this fetish about tying pay to the notion of postings. I presume it arose out of the fact that the CAF unnecessarily shuffles people around from pillar to post into places inhabited only by deer and bears. Honestly guys, it not a d*ck measuring contest.
> ...


Many a colleague of mine has referred to the CAF as just a big federal jobs program for the reasons you state.


----------



## Furniture (10 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> Many a colleague of mine has referred to the CAF as just a big federal jobs program for the reasons you state.


I assume "all taxation is theft" is popular among that crowd as well.


----------



## QV (10 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> I assume "all taxation is theft" is popular among that crowd as well.


Correction: over taxation is theft.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Question:
> What do you do when everyone/vast majority opts for geographic stability?



Let me see if my magic wand is working...

You identify the CAF HR centre of gravity as the 'Urban Areas'.

Recruit from these urban areas and build Brigades centred on Vancouver/Victoria, Edmonton/Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto (two brigades), Montreal/ Quebec City (two brigades), and Freddie/Halifax. Maybe Regina/ Saskatoon as well, but I don't know. Do the math and figure it out based on some solid demographics.

Keep the RCN the same, centred on Victoria and Halifax. Find a way to bring the (currently exiled) RCAF into the urban centres where it makes sense. I'm guessing aircraft based in Edmonton and Montreal can do the same job as those in Cold Lake and Baggotville, but am not qualified to comment. Comox? You guys already have it too good 

Make sure that most troops will be based a (maximum) 3 hour drive from home, or something like that, so they can get home for the weekends and on leave. Set up shuttle buses etc to deliver them there and bring them back as required.

This type of geographical adjacency to home is the current reality for many European militaries, and is a big 'satisfier'.

Oh, and because the CAF is now Urban Centre focused, integrate reserve units seamlessly into the Reg F brigades.

You're welcome


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Let me see if my magic wand is working...
> 
> You identify the CAF HR centre of gravity as the 'Urban Areas'.
> 
> ...



That's sounds fine and dandy.  So you're relying on geographic centers to raise their own units ? How's that working out for the reserves?  You think it will fly for the reg force ?  We can't even get people in Toronto/Halifax ect to pretend to be soldiers 1 evening and weekend a month.  

I really don't think geographic stability is the answer that's going to strengthen us. 

What we need is a strengthened IR program, and ,on the NCM side, clearly defined timelines and a road map for ones career. 

I can tell you from my 23 years almost all of the folks I know who avoid postings are not the people we need.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 Oct 2022)

The problem with the CAF is that they assume every schmuck walking through the door of a CFRG is the next CDS/CAFCWO and plan accordingly. Very few applicants are looking for a 25-35 year career. 

If we were smart, (which we aren't) we would plan for that churn accordingly and develop a career management plan that reflects a 5 to 10 year time line from recruitment to release. In that 5-10 years, no more than 1 year should be attributed to reaching OFP. And I mean a true "Day One at the Unit" OFP; not the "they'll need this at the next DP so let's train it here" OFP. 

Get them doing the job they signed up for sooner, make sure they're fulfilled in doing that job, expect that they won't be resigning, and plan accordingly.

As much as we think we're a great sell, we aren't. Unless that changes, expect the revolving door. Plan for the revolving door.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The problem with the CAF is that they assume every schmuck walking through the door of a CFRG is the next CDS/CAFCWO and plan accordingly. Very few applicants are looking for a 25-35 year career.
> 
> If we were smart, (which we aren't) we would plan for that churn accordingly and develop a career management plan that reflects a 5 to 10 year time line from recruitment to release. In that 5-10 years, no more than 1 year should be attributed to reaching OFP. And I mean a true "Day One at the Unit" OFP; not the "they'll need this at the next DP so let's train it here" OFP.
> 
> ...



I like the idea of much more 3 to 5 year folks.  Much like the US Military. 

Then we identify those we really want to keep and provide heightened remuneration and benefits to entice them to stay and keep them around.


----------



## dimsum (10 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> That's sounds fine and dandy.  So you're relying on geographic centers to raise their own units ? How's that working out for the reserves?  You think it will fly for the reg force ?  We can't even get people in Toronto/Halifax ect to pretend to be soldiers 1 evening and weekend a month.


That's because it's not their main job, and often it conflicts with their "day job".  It might be different if folks in the GTA, etc are allowed to stay there for their entire careers.



Halifax Tar said:


> I really don't think geographic stability is the answer that's going to strengthen us.
> 
> What we need is a strengthened IR program, and ,on the NCM side, clearly defined timelines and a road map for ones career.
> 
> I can tell you from my 23 years almost all of the folks I know who avoid postings are not the people we need.


While I've seen that, I've also seen lots of really good folks get burnt out from multiple short postings, know that there's a PRes job there they can slide into, and said "I'm not moving bc we need geo stability".  

That may be less of a thing in the RCN because of the Home Port Division concept, but it is _definitely_ a thing in the RCAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> That's because it's not their main job, and often it conflicts with their "day job".  It might be different if folks in the GTA, etc are allowed to stay there for their entire careers.
> 
> While I've seen that, I've also seen lots of really good folks get burnt out from multiple short postings, know that there's a PRes job there they can slide into, and said "I'm not moving bc we need geo stability".
> 
> That may be less of a thing in the RCN because of the Home Port Division concept, but it is _definitely_ a thing in the RCAF.



I've def seen that as well.  Mostly in the Officer and CWO/MWO levels, lots of frequent short postings.  But also has to do with out _tick in the box_ method of pers development.  

I'm not against slowing down career progression and ensuring quality development is gained from postings.

I think we need to really think hard about our geographic postings and how we manage them. 

I also think, and I'm a good example as Ottawa is in my future, that we need to embrace remote working.  Most staff jobs can be done from home and a monthly fly in for a few days.  And it would be cheaper than paying for IR.


----------



## dimsum (10 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I also think, and I'm a good example as Ottawa is in my future, that we need to embrace remote working. Most staff jobs can be done from home and a monthly fly in for a few days. And it would be cheaper than paying for IR.


That's been the case for the last 2 years.  Many NCR offices are remotely working, especially if it's project staff.

When you know which office you're going to, talk to the team there to see if they'll allow it.  I'd say many jobs don't even need the "monthly fly-in" as most meetings are on Teams anyway.

My last job had a section of 5 - 3 of us weren't even in the same province.  Productivity actually went up.


----------



## Remius (10 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I've def seen that as well.  Mostly in the Officer and CWO/MWO levels, lots of frequent short postings.  But also has to do with out _tick in the box_ method of pers development.
> 
> I'm not against slowing down career progression and ensuring quality development is gained from postings.
> 
> ...


Remote work should be embraced for a lot of things.  

I know I may have stated this before (sorry if it gets annoying) but this is also a boon for spouses or service couples.  It isn’t hard to figure out and costs way less.  

You live in Halifax?  Cool, we’ll let you work remotely to do a staff job in Ottawa with certain caveats.  Your CAF support for clothing, admin, medical etc etc can remain in Halifax.  

Quality of life won’t suffer, job still gets done, CAF saves a ton of money on moves etc.


----------



## markppcli (10 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> That's sounds fine and dandy.  So you're relying on geographic centers to raise their own units ? How's that working out for the reserves?  You think it will fly for the reg force ?  We can't even get people in Toronto/Halifax ect to pretend to be soldiers 1 evening and weekend a month.



I think that’s more of a reserves issue. There are far more soldiers from the GTA in the Patricia’s now than from rural Sask. Actually in Latvia my entire section were from urban areas, no a single “rural farm boy” to be found, good think they didn’t get sent to Shilo eh?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Don’t knock Dundurn until you’ve tried it…


I’m serious.

It is 20 mins to Saskatoon, a surprisingly cosmopolitan city of 300k, with affordable housing.

How close are Wainwright or Meaford or Petawawa or Shilo to a Major urban centre, again?


----------



## dimsum (10 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> You live in Halifax? Cool, we’ll let you work remotely to do a staff job in Ottawa with certain caveats. Your CAF support for clothing, admin, medical etc etc can remain in Halifax.


That is what the 3 in my previous section did.  It was not hard to set up administratively, esp if it's WFH.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Oct 2022)

I can take two busloads of honoraries from Edmonton to Wainwright, tour CMTC, dine twice, and return in a day, in less time than it takes my girlfriend to shop the West Edmonton Mall (first time).


----------



## RangerRay (10 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I’m serious.
> 
> It is 20 mins to Saskatoon, a surprisingly cosmopolitan city of 300k, with affordable housing.
> 
> How close are Wainwright or Meaford or Petawawa or Shilo to a Major urban centre, again?


There’s a reason why it’s called Sunny Dunny!


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> I think that’s more of a reserves issue. There are far more soldiers from the GTA in the Patricia’s now than from rural Sask. Actually in Latvia my entire section were from urban areas, no a single “rural farm boy” to be found, good think they didn’t get sent exiled to Shilo eh?



There, FTFY


----------



## GR66 (10 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> Remote work should be embraced for a lot of things.
> 
> I know I may have stated this before (sorry if it gets annoying) but this is also a boon for spouses or service couples.  It isn’t hard to figure out and costs way less.
> 
> ...


Do all positions that are capable of remote work need to be uniformed positions?  Or maybe not the position itself but some of the tasks currently performed by a particular position?


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> That's sounds fine and dandy.  So you're relying on geographic centers to raise their own units ? How's that working out for the reserves?  You think it will fly for the reg force ?  We can't even get people in Toronto/Halifax ect to pretend to be soldiers 1 evening and weekend a month.



Anecdote not data, but I spent a year and a half on class B with my major city reserve unit, and one of the hats I wore was recruiting. I never had trouble filling my spots, I was turning solid candidates away because of our recruiting cap. And in our city, the half dozen units are geographically heavily concentrated in a pretty narrow area of the city. If CAF wanted to physically redistribute PRes units to have a presence nearer to major suburbs - and more easily accessed by public transit - they could hire a lot more. Cities are still full of kids who want good work that’s occasionally interesting and exciting.

Reserve attendance and retention seems to more be about having meaningful training, opportunities for courses and deployments, and reliable summer employment for the ones who are students. That gets back to the old and distinct conversation about quality and relevance of training that we’ve had plenty of times before.


----------



## dimsum (10 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> Do all positions that are capable of remote work need to be uniformed positions?  Or maybe not the position itself but some of the tasks currently performed by a particular position?


Just from personal experience as part of project staff:

The Proj Mgt Office?  Probably better to have it as DND civilians - both for continuity and for their experience (PMP, etc).

The SME folks associated with the project?  Should be uniformed and preferably fresh from the community, so they have the best finger on the pulse of the fleet.  But, having some SMEs that know "NCR" is good too - as long as they're kept abreast of the current state of their capabilities. 

For both, I would say that it could be mostly/fully remote.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Oct 2022)

brihard said:


> Anecdote not data, but I spent a year and a half on class B with my major city reserve unit, and one of the hats I wore was recruiting. I never had trouble filling my spots, I was turning solid candidates away because of our recruiting cap. And in our city, the half dozen units are geographically heavily concentrated in a pretty narrow area of the city. If CAF wanted to physically redistribute PRes units to have a presence nearer to major suburbs - and more easily accessed by public transit - they could hire a lot more. Cities are still full of kids who want good work that’s occasionally interesting and exciting.
> 
> Reserve attendance and retention seems to more be about having meaningful training, opportunities for courses and deployments, and reliable summer employment for the ones who are students. That gets back to the old and distinct conversation about quality and relevance of training that we’ve had plenty of times before.



Or you can spend $60 million on the first new building constructed in Western Canada specifically for the Reserves in decades in an area where - for demographic and other reasons - it seems perennially impossible to recruit more than a handful of troops to fill it.

Which is a great example of really crappy planning IMHO...







						New 39 Canadian Brigade Group headquarters officially opens - Canada.ca
					

Today, Minister of Defence Harjit S. Sajjan attended the official opening of the Seaforth Armouries, welcoming the storied Seaforth Highlanders of Vancouver to their new home and headquarters of 39 Canadian Brigade Group.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The huge problem is that its no longer 1986, we're no longer chasing the Soviets out of the Fulda Gap, and even if we hadn't divested the vast majority of our conventional capabilities in the past 35 years; they'd all be obsolete in the face of modern advancements.
> 
> So until we get folks on AOC redoing the Red Team book to make it relevant to real world experiences i  the past 8 years, we're going to have a rough go of it modernizing our way of thinking.


Obsolescent not obsolete. One of the issues we have is we believe we need to have the latest and greatest of everything and if it isn’t then it is worthless. 

No one, other than possibly America, only has the latest kit. Having older kit which you know how to use effectively is not always a bad thing, especially if the option is no kit or older kit. That obsolescent kit can also do a surprising amount of damage, certainly more than having no capabilities does. Using Russia or China or any one else we could reasonably expect to fight, most their kit is going to mostly be older equipment or at least older designs.


----------



## FJAG (10 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> That's sounds fine and dandy. So you're relying on geographic centers to raise their own units ? How's that working out for the reserves? You think it will fly for the reg force ? We can't even get people in Toronto/Halifax ect to pretend to be soldiers 1 evening and weekend a month.


I think that one of the biggest mistakes that the CAF makes when dealing with the reserves is to judge the reserves by its present condition. The current system couldn't be any worse if it was deliberately set up to fail. It needs to be dramatically changed. What's worse is that our present RegF system is starting to show signs of failing. It also needs recovery action if the CAF wants to reverse the trend.

I'm just spit balling here but when it comes to a work force employers do studies to see where it is that their target workers are and/or want to be and then look to build facilities there. When we started the Militia system, Canada was a rural community and we started there, but even back in the 17 and 1800s there was a clear division between urban and rural units. While the Army wanted recruits who could ride and fire a rifle, it very quickly became obvious that the rural population could not support the numbers required. 

Stats Canada defines rural areas as ones with populations below 1,000 which really have no significance for our purposes but the percentage of Canadians living there dropped steadily from 87% in 1851 to 19% in 2011) What matters to the CAF is population centres. What's clear is that Canadians, especially young Canadians, favour urbanization for all the benefits it provides.

Population centres are defined as having a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre and are small (1,000-29,999), medium (30,000-99,999) and large (over 100,000).

As of 2018, Canada's population was 34.4 million of which:

6.4 million lived in rural areas;
4.3 million lived in small population centres;
3.1 million lived in medium population centres; and
20.6 million lived in large population centres.
Canadians are clearly voting with their feet with a desire to live in large population centres notwithstanding the cost of living there. If we ever want to break the back of the recruiting problem and to increase long term career satisfaction (if in fact long term careers is our goal) then we have to have a better appreciation where our target recruits want their life to be and redesign the system to cater to that trend. Modern communication systems and advances in training simulation systems are making it easier and easier to cut the tie to rural training areas except for the most extreme end of our live fire training activities. We need to exploit that. To do that, we need to build a much better reserve system within a much better Army.

🍻


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> Do all positions that are capable of remote work need to be uniformed positions?  Or maybe not the position itself but some of the tasks currently performed by a particular position?


Setting up remote working for civvi positions is a challenge; with uniformed members it's a lot easier, with the hard part just confirming things like IT support and health services. A lot of that is set up under SLAs now between areas so it's all in place.

For civvies TBS decided that you would have to add some caveats that they are required to pay for any travel from their remote location to the home office. It made it effectively impossible to hire civilians unless the job requires no travel and all training can be done remotely.  So instead of setting up satelitte offices for LCMMs on the coasts we instead are looking at hiring contractors at a higher rate (with restrictions on things they can't do, and things like challenges in getting DRMIS accounts).


----------



## markppcli (10 Oct 2022)

Double post sorry


----------



## markppcli (10 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> There, FTFY


You know some of us got posting messages this year


dapaterson said:


> I can take two busloads of honoraries from Edmonton to Wainwright, tour CMTC, dine twice, and return in a day, in less time than it takes my girlfriend to shop the West Edmonton Mall (first time).


you may be dating my wife…


----------



## Ostrozac (10 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> Do all positions that are capable of remote work need to be uniformed positions?


I’m a big fan of remote work. There are certain people of my acquaintance that we should absolutely keep as far away as possible from classified material and from the troops.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Oct 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> I’m a big fan of remote work. There are certain people of my acquaintance that we should absolutely keep as far away as possible from classified material and from the troops.


And they are probably the ones that need max supervision....


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Oct 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> I’m a big fan of remote work. There are certain people of my acquaintance that we should absolutely keep as far away as possible from classified material and from the troops.


Have you done anything about it beyond bringing this up on an anonymous forum?


----------



## Ostrozac (10 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Have you done anything about it beyond bringing this up on an anonymous forum?


Plenty. I’m a former USS, and I’ve witnessed more investigations, infractions and data spills than I can count. Some of it is accidental, but some of it, a lot of it, is that certain of my peers and superiors lack enthusiasm about security — and they see there are no/minimal consequences.


----------



## dimsum (10 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Canadians are clearly voting with their feet with a desire to live in large population centres notwithstanding the cost of living there. If we ever want to break the back of the recruiting problem and to increase long term career satisfaction (if in fact long term careers is our goal) then we have to have a better appreciation where our target recruits want their life to be and redesign the system to cater to that trend. Modern communication systems and advances in training simulation systems are making it easier and easier to cut the tie to rural training areas except for the most extreme end of our live fire training activities. We need to exploit that. To do that, we need to build a much better reserve system within a much better Army.


Or, follow what the Australian Army has done since the beginning - garrisons in cities (sometimes right downtown), skeleton crews in training areas, and move to those trg areas when needed for exercise. 

The RAAF does something similar - they do have an equivalent of the CLAWR but only 1 of their 5 fighter sqns are posted there.  The other 4 are near cities (Brisbane and Newcastle).  When they need to use the live fire range, they fly their planes there - and it's a fairly decent distance.  Interestingly, their trg squadrons are also near Brisbane and Newcastle, not near the range either.

Of course, that would mean a ton of new/refurbished infrastructure in cities.  And imagine the amount of people who can't afford places like Halifax, being posted to places like GTA or GVA.  

From other forums, ADF mbrs are paid well but have issues affording places near the cities - their PLD equivalent is calculated every few years but still lags since the Australian housing market is as crazy, if not worse, than the Canadian one.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Oct 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Plenty. I’m a former USS, and I’ve witnessed more investigations, infractions and data spills than I can count. Some of it is accidental, but some of it, a lot of it, is that certain of my peers and superiors lack enthusiasm about security — and they see there are no/minimal consequences.


So you reported it, an investigation was conducted and the conclusion was « no consequence ». Seems like the process took place and someone is a position of authority made a decision.  Time to move on.


----------



## kev994 (10 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> with uniformed members it's a lot easier, with the hard part just confirming things like IT support and health services. A lot of that is set up under SLAs now between areas so it's all in place.


On the other hand, some bases are bursting at the seams, with the number of people on base increasing in the past decade but no associated increases in the personnel working at Health Services, IT, etc, so they’re reluctant to agree to host someone who will work for a different base. They need to provide a workspace (apparently) and swallow the extra resource drain.


----------



## Grimey (10 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> Do all positions that are capable of remote work need to be uniformed positions?  Or maybe not the position itself but some of the tasks currently performed by a particular position?


For the RCN, a lot of the inland positions are there to provide some semblance of a sea/shore ratio, If only to give relief from constant pier head jumping.  Of the shore positions I had outside of the Fleet School, all could have been filled far more effectively and efficiently with a civilian.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> You know some of us got posting messages this year


----------



## dimsum (10 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> They need to provide a workspace (apparently) and swallow the extra resource drain.


Can they just designate them WFH?


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> Can they just designate them WFH?


These folks still need admin support (although this could be done remotely if we change how we do business), medical and dental support, gym/FORCE testing, individual training, etc, which is not negligeable, especially for popular destinations.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> Can they just designate them WFH?



You assume that most people can be more efficient working from home, but they're not it seems.

Remote workers work longer, not more efficiently​A new study on remote working​
The return to the office is well under way, just as summer in the northern hemisphere begins. Pretty soon, people will be able to resume the habit of staring wistfully out of the window, hoping it will still be sunny at the weekend. As many workers embrace a hybrid pattern, perhaps commuting 2-3 days a week, the experiment in full-time home-working is ending. At the same time, assessments of its effectiveness are proliferating.

Early surveys of employees and employers found that remote work did not reduce productivity. But a new study* of more than 10,000 employees at an Asian technology company between April 2019 and August 2020 paints a different picture. The firm uses software installed on employees’ computers that tracked which applications or websites were active, and whether the employee was using the keyboard or a mouse. (Shopping online didn’t count.)

*The research certainly concluded that the employees were working hard. Total hours worked were 30% higher than before the pandemic, including an 18% increase in working outside normal hours. But this extra effort did not translate into any rise in output. This may explain the earlier survey evidence; both employers and employees felt they were producing as much as before. But the correct way to measure productivity is output per working hour. With all that extra time on the job, this fell by 20%.*

The interesting thing is why this happened. The academics were able to analyse how much time the employees spent in “collaboration hours”, defined as various types of meetings, and how much time they had as “focus hours”, uninterrupted by calls or emails, where they could concentrate on their tasks. Despite working longer hours, the employees had less focus time than before the pandemic. Instead, all their extra time was taken up by meetings. Long-time readers may recall Bartleby’s law: 80% of the time of 80% of the people in meetings is wasted. This study certainly offers evidence for the proposition.

One possibility is that managers are less certain of their team’s commitment and are holding more meetings to check on them. Another is that managers call so many meetings to validate their own existence when they are not in the office. However, the academics suggest the greater need for meetings is the result of the greater difficulty of co-ordinating employees when they are working remotely—another hint that the process is inefficient. When working remotely, employees also spend less time being evaluated, trained and coached.

This seems a raw deal for the employees. They received no more money for the overtime. Although they saved commuting time, this did not offset the extra hours spent in meetings. Not all workers behaved the same way. Those who had worked at the company the longest tended to be more productive, suggesting that they found it easier to navigate the hazards of home-working. Employees with children worked around 20 minutes a day more than those without, implying an even greater fall in their productivity, presumably because they were distracted by child-care duties.

So does this mean companies will abandon remote working altogether, even its hybrid version? The academics point out that the staff at the firm under study are nearly all college-educated and their roles “involve significant cognitive work, developing new software or hardware applications or solutions, collaborating with teams of professionals, working with clients, and engaging in innovation and continuous improvement”. Such work may have posed a particular challenge in remote settings, compared with occupations like responding to customer calls, say, where employees may work to a scripted set of replies.

It is hardly surprising that there would be some teething and co-ordination problems involved with remote working. The practice was, after all, imposed suddenly. The study stopped last August and one wonders whether employees have learned to use their time more efficiently since then. And the research shows that employees were able to achieve as much output with slightly less “focus time” than they had at the office. The real source of inefficiency—surprise, surprise—was the time spent in meetings. And the answer is simple; don’t call as many, and keep them short.









						Remote workers work longer, not more efficiently
					

A new study on remote working




					www.economist.com


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> These folks still need admin support (although this could be done remotely if we change how we do business), medical and dental support, gym/FORCE testing, individual training, etc, which is not negligeable, especially for popular destinations.


That's actually part of the remote work tracking; they are supposed to be keeping track of number of personnel working in a geographic area. So far numbers are pretty small so probably balances out (particularly as we're generally way below remar on most billets). It's not negligible but seems manageable.

On the plus side for family members means they don't have to try and find health care in a new province, which is I think going to be an increasingly critical item as family doctors retire/move.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2022)

I really liked what I read, first, about what Gen Eyre said. I still like the idea of doing the essentials while trying to reconstitute our fighting and support units ...
.
.
.
... _*but*_ ...
.
.
.
... I fear that Fabius is right and this is all just fluff and flummery to disguise the fact that the military is, task-by-task and unit-by-unit, being reduced to political and operational irrelevance. I suspect that DND's civil and military leadership both:

a. knows that; and​b. knows that it is powerless to do anything because it is faced with massive (dare I say 90+%?) public indifference.​
All the major political parties poll assiduously and they don't just ask softball questions. They really want to know what Canadians want and what Canadians think is important. Canadians, *an overwhelming majority of Canadians*, *DO NOT CARE* about the national defence. That is the political reality; that is why neither Prime Minister Trudeau nor Pierre Poilievre ever talk about reconstituting the military.

The problem facing the minister and her departmental and defence staffs is NOT Justin Trudeau ... it is our friends and neighbours and our family members who put defence down at the bottom of their political priority lists.


----------



## Fabius (11 Oct 2022)

I don’t disagree with the premise that the average Canadian does not consider defence high on the priority list if it even makes it there. 

However governing by public opinion and polling I think is also part of our overall national problem. Such a means of decision making I think leads to short term perspectives and projects and what about me thinking.  I agree that it’s natural for politicians to do as it’s an easy means to winning elections. 
Being a statesmen with large ideas and the ability to convince the public that the idea has merit and is nessecary, that is another thing entirely. 
I don’t think that the military leadership can do that, due to our system. They can’t really answer questions from Parliament honestly nor offer their professional opinion. That never makes it into the public sphere as it could be seen as criticism of government. This I think is a weakness of our system as compared to the US where Generals seem much more forthright to Congress. 

If we are to change it will need to be done by someone with more vision than our typical politicians and flag officers, someone who can convince Canadians that the expense is needed and worth the trade offs.  I don’t expect Canadians to change in and of themselves.


----------



## Ostrozac (11 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> .. I fear that Fabius is right and this is all just fluff and flummery to disguise the fact that the military is, task-by-task and unit-by-unit, being reduced to political and operational irrelevance. I suspect that DND's civil and military leadership both:
> 
> a. knows that; and​b. knows that it is powerless to do anything because it is faced with massive (dare I say 90+%?) public indifference.​


Our public, that doesn’t really care, still throws the military about $22 Billion a year out of their taxes.

Can‘t our integral leadership, that are specially selected and expensively trained, find some way to build some kind of combat capability within those assigned resources? I mean, we are a top 20 military spender in the world — more than Israel, Spain, Brazil and Turkey — instead of whining that we need more money, and that Treasury Board is always mean to us, maybe we should just build something that works within our existing boundaries.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2022)

There is nothing in our (Westminster based) system that makes overt, public criticism of the government by officials, including admirals and generals, wrong ... but it does mean that they will, very likely, be fired or, in some cases - they know or might to know where the line is - need to be followed, almost immediately, by an honourable resignation.

Politicians and statements are different breeds - the latter are very rare and are, often (think e.g. Cecil (1550-1595) and Pitt the Younger (1780-1805)), called forth by events.

Politics is a short term business - electoral term short. Polling is a good way to find out what the people - who politicians (mostly honestly) want to serve - really want and need (not always the same thing). Some polls, the ones made public by parties and the media, are just fluff, intended to tell us what this party or that party wants us to think matters, but the private polls are much better designed and aim to get at the public's, not the party's views.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Our public, that doesn’t really care, still throws the military about $22 Billion a year out of their taxes.
> 
> _Can‘t our integral leadership, that are specially selected and expensively trained, find some way to build some kind of combat capability within those assigned resources?_ I mean, we are a top 20 military spender in the world — more than Israel, Spain, Brazil and Turkey — instead of whining that we need more money, and that Treasury Board is always mean to us, maybe we should just build something that works within our existing boundaries.



*No*, because that, most emphatically, is NOT their job.

It is the duty off the civil power to decide how and with what - people and equipment - the armed forces must defend the country - that's why the key appointments in any defence ministry (policy, finance, personnel and materiel) are filled by senior (politicized) civil servants, not by GOFOs) It is the duty off admirals and generals to do their best with what is provided or to resign ... after explaining that blood and treasure are being wasted.


----------



## FJAG (11 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> *No*, because that, most emphatically, is NOT their job.
> 
> It is the duty off the civil power to decide how and with what - people and equipment - the armed forces must defend the country - that's why the key appointments in any defence ministry (policy, finance, personnel and materiel) are filled by senior (politicized) civil servants, not by GOFOs) It is the duty off admirals and generals to do their best with what is provided or to resign ... after explaining that blood and treasure are being wasted.


There is a clear need, and I say a clear duty, on senior military leaders to educate both the politicians and the civilian bureaucrats on the military's capabilities in simple graphic terms (explaining things in simple graphic terms is a skill the military seems to have lost, however)

I'm thinking of one of those software option charts that set out capabilities down one column and then has different software version in the adjoining ones with checkmarks and Xs as to what it can and cannot do.

When I read the current SSE and the Army is described as "agile, scalable, and responsive" and as having "the depth to permanently shape the security environment through effective deterrence of threats and ultimately, with a critical mass of troops on the ground, to prevail in the most difficult circumstances - combat with an advanced adversary." (p.36) it makes me want to hurl. It's nothing short of a bald-faced lie being told to the Canadian public and tolerated by the CDS and Army chain of command. There isn't one checkmark on a chart of the present Army that would appear next to "effective deterrent" or "prevail against advanced adversary"

IMHO, tacit complicity in such an outrageous charade is a moral failing as an officer regardless of whether the lie comes from a deluded or venal politician. This is why I tend to heap more scorn and blame on Canada's senior officers rather than the politicians and bureaucrats. The officers should know better what the consequences of such neglect are. It is their sworn duty to maintain an efficient armed forces and if they can't do so, based on the failures of the politicians and bureaucrats, it is their duty to get out of the way for someone who can and to inform the public of the reality of the situation. I'll admit, a protest by the then CDS may not have carried much weight considering subsequent events. 

The days of simply tugging your forelock and saying "Yes boss" are long behind us.

😖


----------



## TacticalTea (11 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I don't know that pay increases do much for new entries.  New equipment and a clear mission statement would probably go further with getting people in the front door and keeping a hold of them for a couple of years.   Quality of life and pay increases will dictate if they want to stick around and turn it into a career.


I'm late to the party but I agree. Pay is pay. For most, not much more than a nicety after 60k per person. 

What matters more is support, purpose, having the tools for the job, and not being screwed with. Sitting for a year in accommodations that are falling apart while awaiting training on equipment that has been obsolete for decades and being told you're evil because of the way you were born does much more damage to ''rec'n'ret'' than pay that hasn't kept up with exceptionally high inflation.

Why? Because pay hasn't risen elsewhere either. But the other factors might have.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> I really liked what I read, first, about what Gen Eyre said. I still like the idea of doing the essentials while trying to reconstitute our fighting and support units ...
> .
> .
> .
> ...





This got the attention of the Canadian public.  This and Bikini Atoll, and H-Bombs and Sputniks and ICBMs.

They created the backdrop against which Mr. Campbell's candidate for "Best Prime Minister" - Louis St-Laurent - launched the creation of the modern Canadian Armed Forces.

75 years, a lifetime and 5 or 6 generations later - where nothing happened - and nobody believes there is an imperative.

You soldiers know people who died on foreign shores.  Nobody died in action at home.  The vast majority of Canadians don't know anybody who died.   And those that do know of them also know that they voluntarily put themselves in that position...

Well done them.  

Pass me a beer.  How are the Sharks going to do this year?


----------



## Furniture (11 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> I'm late to the party but I agree. Pay is pay. *For most, not much more than a nicety after 60k per person.*
> 
> What matters more is support, purpose, having the tools for the job, and not being screwed with. Sitting for a year in accommodations that are falling apart while awaiting training on equipment that has been obsolete for decades and being told you're evil because of the way you were born does much more damage to ''rec'n'ret'' than pay that hasn't kept up with exceptionally high inflation.
> 
> Why? Because pay hasn't risen elsewhere either. But the other factors might have.


The bolded part is the only part I take issue with, otherwise I agree.

A Capt/Lt(N) will make double what you quoted by the time SDA/LDA and PLD are factored in. Would you think being paid as a base non-Spec S1 is a nicety? They make $64K annually...

I get that about $60K is what the average Canadian makes, and if the CAF only wanted average Canadians that put in average time/work that might make sense as a baseline. The CAF expects far more, while treating people poorly, and leadership people make comments like the above.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> The bolded part is the only part I take issue with, otherwise I agree.
> 
> A Capt/Lt(N) will make double what you quoted by the time SDA/LDA and PLD are factored in. Would you think being paid as a base non-Spec S1 is a nicety? They make $64K annually...
> 
> I get that about $60K is what the average Canadian makes, and *if the CAF only wanted average Canadians *that put in average time/work that might make sense as a baseline. *The CAF expects far more*, while treating people poorly, and leadership people make comments like the above.



And maybe there's a problem there.  Are you recruiting for a Warrior Caste?   Or are you recruiting Canadians to defend their country?

$120,000 a year?

I can hire you two PhDs for that.  Full time.

How about you give me $120,000 and I recruit you 6x 20 year olds for 3 months each?   And then release them on their own recognisance for the rest of the year with an offer of another $20,000 next year?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> And maybe there's a problem there.  Are you recruiting for a Warrior Caste?   Or are you recruiting Canadians to defend their country?


We have been a Warrior Caste since 1968. Canadians don't defend their homeland; Canadian Armed Forces members do. We have a large, professional, standing military. We aren't calling up reserves or draftees to head to the front. We want people with industry level skills in some trades to come and serve with substandard conditions, compensation, and benefits all "For King and Country." 

 I checked with RBC and I can't pay off my mortgage with "For King and Country" any more than I could with magic beans.



Kirkhill said:


> $120,000 a year?
> 
> I can hire you two PhDs for that.  Full time.


I can maybe hire half a Cyber Security specialist for 120K a year. How are we to become a digitally specialized force with RP/AI/ML if we are trying to attract those talents for pennies on the dollar compared to industry? We can't, we won't, and it's not a valid COA. 



Kirkhill said:


> How about you give me $120,000 and I recruit you 6x 20 year olds for 3 months each?   And then release them on their own recognisance for the rest of the year with an offer of another $20,000 next year?


Because we're short on 20 year old kids that have no skill sets we can employ right? Go to a BTL Platoon and you'll f8nd thousands of them. 

What we're missing are the trained, specialized middle managers in the MCpl/Sgt Capt/Maj rank that are leaving in droves due to low pay and overwork. The tempo isn't going to slow down, so until we get more people to share the load, pay those who remain. If not, you'll still have those unskilled 20 year Olds with their thumbs up their asses, without the ability to lead, manage, or train them to accomplish our core business.


----------



## Furniture (11 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> And maybe there's a problem there.  Are you recruiting for a Warrior Caste?   Or are you recruiting Canadians to defend their country?
> 
> $120,000 a year?
> 
> ...


Maybe it's time we stopped pretending that zeal for "King and Country" is what people sign up for. 

If we want a professional military that can do the GoC's bigging on short notice, we need to pay what those people want/demand. Imaging that we'll fill the CAF with 20 year olds looking for adventure and wages like Subway pays is wishful thinking.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Because we're short on 20 year old kids that have no skill sets we can employ right? Go to a BTL Platoon and you'll f8nd thousands of them.



You will find a lot of 20 year olds that want those careers in AI.   $20,000 a year would go a long way to paying their RBC education loans.  And you might find a few that are willing to hang around for a few years For King and Country - and maybe, even, find a reason to maintain contact once they have a family and a mortgage.   Those are the people that will happily top out as middle managers.



rmc_wannabe said:


> What we're missing are the trained, specialized middle managers in the MCpl/Sgt Capt/Maj rank that are leaving in droves due to low pay and overwork. The tempo isn't going to slow down, so until we get more people to share the load, pay those who remain. If not, you'll still have those unskilled 20 year Olds with their thumbs up their asses, without the ability to lead, manage, or train them to accomplish our core business.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> Maybe it's time we stopped pretending that zeal for "King and Country" is what people sign up for.
> 
> If we want a professional military that can do the GoC's bigging on short notice, we need to pay what those people want/demand. Imaging that we'll fill the CAF with 20 year olds looking for adventure and wages like Subway pays is wishful thinking.



Actually, that's exactly why people join up, it seems.

I know these are US examples, but these results seem to square with what I observed amongst the teens and 20 somethings in my rifle companies over the years:


Studies tackle who joins the military and why, but their findings aren’t what many assume​
Ever since the U.S. military became an all-volunteer force, a preconception has existed among many Americans that those who choose to join the armed services do so because they have no other options.

That is the hypothethis of two studies released this year. Both debunk that stereotype, finding that the military is much more diverse ― and troops have much more varied reasons for signing up ― than some have assumed.









						Studies tackle who joins the military and why, but their findings aren’t what many assume
					

There are some stereotypes about who serves and why, but the research doesn't support them.




					www.militarytimes.com
				




25 Most Common Reasons for Joining the Military​The Indeed Editorial Team comprises a diverse and talented team of writers, researchers and subject matter experts equipped with Indeed's data and insights to deliver useful tips to help guide your career journey.



			https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/reasons-for-joining-the-military#:~:text=To%20serve%20your%20country,desire%20to%20do%20something%20meaningful.


----------



## kev994 (11 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Actually, that's exactly why people join up, it seems.
> 
> I know these are US examples, but these results seem to square with what I observed amongst the teens and 20 somethings in my rifle companies over the years:
> 
> ...


Perhaps why they sign up but what we actually need is for people to stay in and train the new zealots. A bunch of new recruits are not very useful on their own.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> Perhaps why they sign up but *what we actually need is for people to stay in and train the new zealots*. A bunch of new recruits are not very useful on their own.



Then we should fire the Officers and SNCOs who are the worst leaders, and have the highest turnover rates, because they are driving away all the good people


----------



## Furniture (11 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Actually, that's exactly why people join up, it seems.
> 
> I know these are US examples, but these results seem to square with what I observed amongst the teens and 20 somethings in my rifle companies over the years:
> 
> ...


America has a very different culture around service. They're also facing a massive uphill battle to recruit and retain personnel...


----------



## kev994 (11 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Then we should fire the Officers and SNCOs who are the worst leaders, and have the highest turnover rates, because they are driving away all the good people


That I could get behind, there’s probably an easy way to track that.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> That I could get behind, there’s probably an easy way to track that.



When you build up a unit to almost full strength, then a new CO and RSM arrive, and then 6 months later you're back to platoons of 12, it's not hard to guess the reason


----------



## TacticalTea (11 Oct 2022)

.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> Perhaps why they sign up but what we actually need is for people to stay in and train the new zealots. A bunch of new recruits are not very useful on their own.


Actually, _in my opinion_, you we need both: 

a. a steady supply of young zealots, most of whom do not want to make careers in the military but from which we draw;​b. a smaller cadre of leaders and technical specialists.​
I'll leave it others to tell us how we might get both.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Oct 2022)

The obvious being restated in the Natty Post....

Jesse Kline: Armed Forces admit there's no one left to use its rusted out gear


----------



## Fabius (11 Oct 2022)

If our salaries are insufficient at the various ranks what would be? 

A significant percentage of those serving think we aren’t paid enough. Fair enough but I want to know what is enough from Pte on up as that never seems to get discussed other than in terms like “living wage” that don’t account for lifestyle,age,experience,training,education etc. 

So what dollar value will entice recruitment and retention? 

Ie. a Pte needs to make $80,000 ( random number)  What does a Sgt make then? $120,000? How about a Capt then?


----------



## TacticalTea (11 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> The bolded part is the only part I take issue with, otherwise I agree.
> 
> A Capt/Lt(N) will make double what you quoted by the time SDA/LDA and PLD are factored in. Would you think being paid as a base non-Spec S1 is a nicety? They make $64K annually...
> 
> I get that about $60K is what the average Canadian makes, and if the CAF only wanted average Canadians that put in average time/work that might make sense as a baseline. The CAF expects far more, while treating people poorly, and leadership people make comments like the above.


Correct your aim; we were talking about early career.
This is the context in which I was making my comment:


Kirkhill said:


> *I don't know that pay increases do much for new entries.* New equipment and a clear mission statement would probably go further with getting people in the front door and keeping a hold of them for a couple of years. Quality of life and pay increases will dictate if they want to stick around and turn it into a career.


My reply.


> I'm late to the party but I agree. Pay is pay. For most, not much more than a nicety after 60k per person.
> 
> What matters more is support, purpose, having the tools for the job, and not being screwed with. Sitting for a year in accommodations that are falling apart *while awaiting training* *[aka, not people at OFP]* on equipment that has been obsolete for decades and being told you're evil because of the way you were born does much more damage to ''rec'n'ret'' than pay that hasn't kept up with exceptionally high inflation.
> 
> Why? Because pay hasn't risen elsewhere either. But the other factors might have.


It's a matter of understanding how to attract and retain people at different stages of their lives and careers. What seems great for a 20 year old Zoomer recruit may not be interesting at all to a 35 year old SNCO. 

The problem with focusing on pay hikes is that... everyone wants it. Military, sure, but... service industry, healthcare sector, in education, etc. Yet there's only so much money to go around. Better to target specific areas for improvement that may be more qualitative in nature. The money may be better spent that way.

As for the trained folks, of course spec pay must be continuously assessed, but think of one of the worst hit trades in the Navy: MarTechs. Did they all leave because they are oh so valuable to the private sector? Or because the organization completely and utterly shafted them?


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> As for the trained folks, of course spec pay must be continuously assessed, but think of one of the worst hit trades in the Navy: MarTechs. Did they all leave because they are oh so valuable to the private sector? Or because the organization completely and utterly shafted them?


Yes.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Oct 2022)

Fabius said:


> If our salaries are insufficient at the various ranks what would be?
> 
> A significant percentage of those serving think we aren’t paid enough. Fair enough but I want to know what is enough from Pte on up as that never seems to get discussed other than in terms like “living wage” that don’t account for lifestyle,age,experience,training,education etc.
> 
> ...


This is honestly less about what we get paid and more about where the money goes. 

The CAF pays a reasonable wage. I will agree to that. The issue is that there is no mechanism i  which that wage correlates to a reasonable quality of life across the force. 

We called it posting roulette last APS on who would be living the high life in a low CoL posting or in an area where the PLD is inflated/present versus areas that have been boned by exponential growth in CoL while PLD rates stayed as they were for 2009 forever. 

Couple that with the fact promotion rates stall within the NCM ranks, but those 4 incentives hold you in place until you're able to climb up the ladder, yep. We aren't "paid well enough;" not in dollar amount, but how we pay it out and how much the member has after the Cost of Living is a huge factor in wage disparity within  the CAF.

We need to see the Pay Incentive Levels expand in NCM trades that are slow to promote. We also need to ensure the standard of living for troops is even across the board, not based on geography. There is no reason Cpl Bloggins in Kingston should be supplementing with Food Bank provisions while Cpl Smith in Edmonton is enjoying having their PLD cover half their mortgage. Conversely, it's extremely hollow hearing a "maybe next year.." from Capt McFuckFace who has 3 incentives ahead of them, even if they're not going to pick up Maj.

If you want to see people join, change the way we do business. In all facets. Otherwise you're going to have the same problems with the same solutions.


----------



## TacticalTea (11 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This is honestly less about what we get paid and more about where the money goes.
> 
> The CAF pays a reasonable wage. I will agree to that. The issue is that there is no mechanism i  which that wage correlates to a reasonable quality of life across the force.
> 
> ...


Totally agree that PLD is not properly managed as it is.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Oct 2022)

For those who are interested, the Retention strategy is now on the DND website….


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> We need to see the Pay Incentive Levels expand in NCM trades that are slow to promote. We also need to ensure the standard of living for troops is even across the board, not based on geography. There is no reason Cpl Bloggins in Kingston should be supplementing with Food Bank provisions while Cpl Smith in Edmonton is enjoying having their PLD cover half their mortgage. Conversely, it's extremely hollow hearing a "maybe next year.." from Capt McFuckFace who has 3 incentives ahead of them, even if they're not going to pick up Maj.



One way to ensure everybody in the forces enjoys the same standard of living at the same cost would be to create gated communities.  Some might call them bases.


----------



## Furniture (11 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> For those who are interested, the Retention strategy is now on the DND website….


That was a few minutes I'll never get back... I should have read it at work, then at least I would have wasted the CAF's time.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> That was a few minutes I'll never get back... I should have read it at work, then at least I would have wasted the CAF's time.



Let me guess: ‘Train to excite‘ was in there somewhere


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> That was a few minutes I'll never get back... I should have read it at work, then at least I would have wasted the CAF's time.


All your base are belong to us.


Sorry, all your time belongs to the CAF.


----------



## Quirky (11 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Couple that with the fact promotion rates stall within the NCM ranks, but those 4 incentives hold you in place until you're able to climb up the ladder, yep. We aren't "paid well enough;" not in dollar amount, but how we pay it out and how much the member has after the Cost of Living is a huge factor in wage disparity within the CAF.



Cut provincial income tax and make PMQ rent the same everywhere. Add some sort of PLD that’s evaluated every year and call it good. Have the base commander approve or deny the recommendation to raise or lower based on yearly evaluations.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2022)

Base commanders lack the knowledge and training to make that kind of assessment.


----------



## markppcli (11 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> That was a few minutes I'll never get back... I should have read it at work, then at least I would have wasted the CAF's time.


I just want an explanation of how I’m supposed to pitch a second or third contract with the army to someone when they can get a job paying them 1.5 x what they were getting, know their schedule for a year in advance, and do what they get trained to down the road at the remand centre. There’s a reason it’s called 5 PPCLI (no it’s not the guests). We loose 2-5 MCpls a year to that place because they start them at the top pay bracket for having leadership training. 

And for anyone saying they can hire a PHD for 60 k I’d love to know what industry. Everyone I know with a masters is making well over 100k.


----------



## markppcli (11 Oct 2022)

Fabius said:


> If our salaries are insufficient at the various ranks what would be?
> 
> A significant percentage of those serving think we aren’t paid enough. Fair enough but I want to know what is enough from Pte on up as that never seems to get discussed other than in terms like “living wage” that don’t account for lifestyle,age,experience,training,education etc.
> 
> ...


I don’t think Captains make too much money, but perhaps we shouldn’t start the count down to that automatic promotion until after OFP? So we aren’t paying some one doing an entry level apprentice job like Pl Comd the pay rate of a seasoned staff officer ?


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> And for anyone saying they can hire a PHD for 60 k I’d love to know what industry. Everyone I know with a masters is making well over 100k.



That's because a MBA is more useful than a PhD


----------



## kev994 (11 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> That was a few minutes I'll never get back... I should have read it at work, then at least I would have wasted the CAF's time.


That was pretty much my take on it, lots of buzz words, some problem definition, zero solutions. It’s basically an 80 page list of ideas and buzz words. We’re going to improve life for families by improving life for families.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Base commanders lack the knowledge and training to make that kind of assessment.


And Ottawa can do better?


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2022)

Yes.  They have comparative data.  Few base commanders have that bigger picture; fewer still would act on it.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> That was pretty much my take on it, lots of buzz words, some problem definition, zero solutions. It’s basically an 80 page list of ideas and buzz words. We’re going to improve life for families by improving life for families.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Yes.  They have comparative data.  Few base commanders have that bigger picture; fewer still would act on it.


So that is why Ottawa has acted so decisively, then…


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> So that is why Ottawa has acted so decisively, then…



Fair complaint, but who in Ottawa has and has not done things (and when that occurred) is a key consideration, and involves stories best told in other environments.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> I just want an explanation of how I’m supposed to pitch a second or third contract with the army to someone when they can get a job paying them 1.5 x what they were getting, know their schedule for a year in advance, and do what they get trained to down the road at the remand centre. There’s a reason it’s called 5 PPCLI (no it’s not the guests). We loose 2-5 MCpls a year to that place because they start them at the top pay bracket for having leadership training.
> 
> And for anyone saying they can hire a PHD for 60 k I’d love to know what industry. Everyone I know with a masters is making well over 100k.



I'll start with government scientists and the food industry.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2022)

Canada is enjoying/enduring a pretty employee-friendly hiring climate right now.

As for the indifference of Canadians to defence, it exists because political geography allows us that luxury.


----------



## FSTO (11 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> For those who are interested, the Retention strategy is now on the DND website….


Where? On the DWAN or Internet. 

I'm bloody blind


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> Where? On the DWAN or Internet.
> 
> I'm bloody blind








						CAF Retention Strategy - Canada.ca
					

Retention in the CAF context can be a reflection of all aspects of an individual’s personal and professional experiences as a member of the military, recognizing that these lived experiences differ across many influencing factors.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## FSTO (11 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> CAF Retention Strategy - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Retention in the CAF context can be a reflection of all aspects of an individual’s personal and professional experiences as a member of the military, recognizing that these lived experiences differ across many influencing factors.
> ...


Thanks, I also checked my email. The link was in my deleted bin.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> CAF Retention Strategy - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Retention in the CAF context can be a reflection of all aspects of an individual’s personal and professional experiences as a member of the military, recognizing that these lived experiences differ across many influencing factors.
> ...


Ahhh… I read about the CAF Offer in there…. The CAF Offee is essentially a means for the CAF to tell its members « Stop whining,  look at all you have in terms of benefits. »  I don’t see how that’s a winner but I can see 3000 ways this can go wrong. Clearly, the CAF Offer, as experienced by people living it, isn’t enough to keep our mid-level experience (critical to force generation) in.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Oct 2022)

Tangentially, from HBR:


Why People Really Quit Their Jobs​

Summary.  
People don’t quit a job, the saying goes — they quit a boss. But that’s not what Facebook found in a recent engagement survey. When the company wanted to keep people and they left anyway, it was because they didn’t like the work, their strengths were underused, or they weren’t growing in their careers. So people at Facebook _do_ quit a job. But who’s responsible for what that job is like? Managers. If you want to keep your people — especially your stars — customize their experiences in three ways. First, craft roles that they’ll enjoy. This can involve hiring impressive candidates and then writing their job descriptions, for instance, or rotating current employees out of roles where they’re excelling but not feeling motivated. Second, allow them to draw on a wider range of their skills and passions. And third, minimize work-life trade-offs by carving a path for career development that accommodates their personal priorities.


People don’t quit a job, the saying goes — they quit a boss. We’ve heard it so many times that when we started tracking why employees leave Facebook, all bets were on managers. But our engagement survey results told a different story: When we wanted to keep people and they left anyway, it wasn’t because of their manager…at least not in the way we expected.

Of course, people are more likely to jump ship when they have a horrible boss. But we’ve spent years working to select and develop great managers at Facebook, and most of our respondents said they were happy with theirs. The decision to exit was because of the work. They left when their job wasn’t enjoyable, their strengths weren’t being used, and they weren’t growing in their careers.

At Facebook, people don’t quit a boss — they quit a job. And who’s responsible for what that job is like? Managers.

If you want to keep your people — especially your stars — it’s time to pay more attention to how you design their work. Most companies design jobs and then slot people into them. Our best managers sometimes do the opposite: When they find talented people, they’re open to creating jobs around them.

*Working with our People Analytics team, we crunched our survey data to predict who would stay or leave in the next six months, and in the process we learned something interesting about those who eventually stayed. They found their work enjoyable 31% more often, used their strengths 33% more often, and expressed 37% more confidence that they were gaining the skills and experiences they need to develop their careers. This highlights three key ways that managers can customize experiences for their people: enable them to do work they enjoy, help them play to their strengths, and carve a path for career development that accommodates personal priorities.*

*Crafting Jobs for Enjoyment*​Many of us have unanswered callings at work — passions that we didn’t get to pursue in our careers. Whether we lacked the talent, the opportunity, or the means to make them our occupations, landing in a different career doesn’t make these passions disappear. They linger, like the professional version of the one who got away. And since we spend the majority of our waking hours at work, there isn’t always time to pursue these unanswered callings as hobbies. So we look for ways to bring our passions into our jobs. Personally, we know a lawyer who missed his dream of being a pilot and so sought out aviation cases, and a teacher who walked away from a music career but brings a guitar to class. But inside organizations, people often need support to craft their jobs.

Managers can play a major role in designing motivating, meaningful jobs. The best go out of their way to help people do work they enjoy — even if it means rotating them out of roles where they’re excelling. A few years ago, one of Facebook’s directors, Cynthia, was leading a large team of HR business partners. She realized that she wasn’t spending her time doing what she enjoyed most: solving problems with her clients. She had taken on more responsibilities managing a large team because of her strength as a trusted adviser to some of Facebook’s key leaders. But once she was in the job, she realized it meant doing less of the work that energized her.

With her manager’s support, Cynthia hired someone new onto the team, with the long-term vision of asking her to run the team and then moving back to an individual contributor role. Cynthia wasn’t just hiring a direct report; she was hiring her future boss. Once the new hire was ramped up, and it was clear that she enjoyed the organizational and people management elements of her job, she and Cynthia made the switch. Cynthia is now thriving, solving problems with the clients she loves so much, and her new hire is leading the team. Keeping Cynthia at Facebook was much more important to her manager than keeping her in a particular role.

Too often, managers don’t know enough about what work people enjoy. It spills out in exit interviews — a standard practice in every HR department to find out why talented people are leaving and what would have convinced them to stick around. But why wait until they’re on their way out the door? One of us, Adam, has worked with companies in multiple industries to design _entry_ interviews. In the first week on the job, managers sit down with their new hires and ask them about their favorite projects they’ve done, the moments when they’ve felt most energized at work, the times when they’ve found themselves totally immersed in a state of flow, and the passions they have outside their jobs. Armed with that knowledge, managers can build engaging roles from the start.

*Bringing in Underutilized Strengths*​In a world dominated by specialization, we’re long past the era of the Renaissance Man. Once in a blue moon we see one. Marie Curie won a Nobel prize for her pioneering work in physics, and then earned another in chemistry. Richard Feynman transformed electrodynamics, decoded Mayan hieroglyphs, and cracked safes in his spare time. Although few reach this level of accomplishment in multiple fields, many talented people are polymaths. At Facebook, our head of diversity is a former lawyer, journalist, and talk show host; one of our communications leaders used to sing in a rock band; and one of our product managers is a former teacher. Sadly, the narrow job descriptions that companies create stifle their ability to use the full range of their employees’ skills.

Smart managers create opportunities for people to use their strengths. To see how that can play out, let’s consider Chase, who was recently working as a software engineer at Instagram. About six months ago, when his team went through rapid product iteration to introduce new tools and formats, Chase helped lead the team to exceptional results. But he finished the project drained from the extensive coding and cross-functional work — and started wondering whether there were other ways to contribute. Talking with his manager, Lu, he realized that while he had a strong technical background, where he really excelled was building prototypes to help prove concepts quickly and then iterating. But Instagram didn’t have any roles that blended this skill set, and Chase didn’t have a track record in traditional design work.

Lu convinced the design team to take a risk and allow Chase to try a new role for a “hackamonth.” During that time, Chase partnered with Ryan, a product design lead, to quickly build several prototypes that tested novel ways of capturing and sharing. His success not only landed him in a brand-new role that leveraged his strengths but also created the conditions to build a broader team of collaborators with similar skills and interests. According to Lu, “A shift to this role was a no-brainer for Chase and a win for Instagram. All that was missing was the push to make this happen.”

Creating new roles isn’t the only way to let people play to their strengths. In a connected world, a huge part of getting work done is seeking and sharing knowledge. Some estimates suggest that knowledge workers spend more than one-quarter of their time searching for information. It’s up to managers to help them figure out where to turn. As managers learn who knows what, they can connect the dots — or better yet, build a searchable database of experts. The goal is to put employees’ strengths on display so that people know whom to contact.

*Making It Possible to Lean In at Work and at Home*​In too many situations, opening a door in our careers means closing one in our personal lives. The special project that takes date nights away from our partners. The big promotion that takes weekends away from our kids. The new role across the country that takes us away from our families.

At Facebook, our best managers work with people to minimize these trade-offs by creating career opportunities that mesh with personal priorities. Here’s an example.

Shona, an agency lead, was coming back from maternity leave to a global role where time zones directly conflicted with her parenting. With her manager, Shona developed a prioritization plan for travel. For anything that was important but not essential, she worked with regional colleagues to set up meeting coverage. Shona’s manager also connected her with a mentor in a global role who guided her through her transition. In Shona’s words, “This deep level of support gave me the confidence to return to work fully present and also be there for my daughter.” Managers who give this kind of support find that their people not only deliver but also stay longer — they’re proud of where they work.

People leave jobs, and it’s up to managers to design jobs that are too good to leave. Great bosses set up shields — they protect their employees from toxicity. They also open doors to meaningful tasks and learning opportunities — they enable their people to be energized by their projects, to perform at their best, and to move forward professionally without taking steps backward at home. When you have a manager who cares about your happiness and your success, your career and your life, you end up with a better job, and it’s hard to imagine working anywhere else.









						Why People Really Quit Their Jobs
					

People don’t quit a job, the saying goes — they quit a boss. But that’s not what Facebook found in a recent engagement survey. When the company wanted to keep people and they left anyway, it was because they didn’t like the work, their strengths were underused, or they weren’t growing in their...




					hbr.org


----------



## markppcli (12 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I'll start with government scientists and the food industry.


I’ll be sure to pass onto the biologists at Environment Canada and the Alberta Govt I know that they’re being paid double the going rate, and with only a masters. For reference the government pays technologists at 57-84. Meteorological Technologist – Developmental Program from EG-03 to EG-05


----------



## markppcli (12 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> That's because a MBA is more useful than a PhD


Nah they have masters in sciences. One wrote their thesis on birds hitting windows.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2022)

"Carving a path for career development" is a hard lift for the big Gray / Green / Blue services.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 Oct 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> "Carving a path for career development" is a hard lift for the big Gray / Green / Blue services.


"You can carve a career path ... so long as it leads to Shilo this APS and doesn't have an option for IR/Remote work" - Career Managers


----------



## dimsum (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Nah they have masters in sciences. One wrote their thesis on birds hitting windows.


I can see some building/skyscraper companies being very interested.

The dissertation on the colour "fuchsia", less so*

*yes I made that up, but I'm sure there are some ridiculous PhD dissertations out there


----------



## Weinie (12 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> I can see some building/skyscraper companies being very interested.
> 
> The dissertation on the colour "fuchsia", less so*
> 
> *yes I made that up, but I'm sure there are some ridiculous PhD dissertations out there


Actually, there are some ridiculous PhD's out there.


----------



## brihard (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> One wrote their thesis on birds hitting windows.



You mean like in Top Gun?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> I don’t think Captains make too much money, but _perhaps we shouldn’t start the count down to that automatic promotion until after OFP_? So we aren’t paying some one doing an entry level apprentice job like Pl Comd the pay rate of a seasoned staff officer ?


Perhaps promotion above lieutenant - platoon/troop commander - should require a combination of _fully acceptable_ or better annual reports (PERs) and, big AND *examinations* to demonstrate theoretical and practical knowledge of a few things like military law, current affairs, organization and administration in peace and war and current tactical doctrine.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Actually, there are some ridiculous PhD's out there.


Indeed ... and some (Math, for sure) that make mid six figures ($(US)500K+) on graduation IF they leave the academy and work in other areas. Even some top unis pay top dollar ($(US)250K) for Math profs ... and then there are consulting contracts to top that up. (Not all uni profs do consulting on the side, but many do and it doesn't appear to seriously impair their social lives.)


----------



## dapaterson (12 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> Indeed ... and some (Math, for sure) that make mid six figures ($(US)500K+) on graduation IF they leave the academy and work in other areas. Even some top unis pay top dollar ($(US)250K) for Math profs ... and then there are consulting contracts to top that up. (Not all uni profs do consulting on the side, but many do and it doesn't appear to seriously impair their social lives.)


Math prof and social life are a non intersecting Venn diagram.


----------



## markppcli (12 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> "You can carve a career path ... so long as it leads to Shilo this APS and doesn't have an option for IR/Remote work" - Career Managers


Shhhh next you’ll suggest that having some one go from St Jean, then to a training base, then to their first posting is a needless waste of money.


----------



## Quirky (12 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Base commanders lack the knowledge and training to make that kind of assessment.



They lack the knowledge and training for a lot of things, however that's why they get little minions to draft reports and assessments for them. 

Whomever divided the original PLD structure is an idiot.


----------



## Weinie (12 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Math prof and social life are a non intersecting Venn diagram.


My math prof at university helped develop the CANTASS algorithm. He was brilliant, but a complete dud when you talked to him.


----------



## lenaitch (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> And for anyone saying they can hire a PHD for 60 k I’d love to know what industry. Everyone I know with a masters is making well over 100k.


Not doctoral, but just to add to the discussion, I saw this in another, totally unrelated forum, regarding a VIA station agent/ticket sales position.  According to another site, this position earns between $69K and $75K/year.




I have a few PhDs on my wife's side.  Most have gone onto to either law or medicine to, you know, make a living.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Tangentially, from HBR:
> 
> People don’t quit a job, the saying goes — they quit a boss. But that’s not what Facebook found in a recent engagement survey.



Depends on the job. Do good customer service, and you'll hardly ever see your supervisor. Screw up out there, and oh man!



> Not doctoral, but just to add to the discussion, I saw this in another, totally unrelated forum, regarding a VIA station agent/ticket sales position. According to another site, this position earns between $69K and $75K/year.



Just a guess. But, possibly the intent was to get on with VIA, at an entry level, so when a more desirable Job Call comes available, only Internal applicants are eligible to apply. We called them, "No fail promotions".
Not forced to compete with a multitude of "off the street" External applicants.

That really tilts the odds for an employee seeking an internal promotion.

All the while, building pension and seniority etc.

It was a pretty common tactic where I worked.


----------



## quadrapiper (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Shhhh next you’ll suggest that having some one go from St Jean, then to a training base, then to their first posting is a needless waste of money.


Vague idea: for trades where this is workable, moving Basic (which could incidentally be shortened/adjusted/made trade and service-specific) and initial trades training to either First Unit or First Base would also mean creating a training cell, the staffing of which would provide a not-in-unit lines rotation for a healthy collection of _other _people who wouldn't need to move as often. Fleet School plus localized BMQ, effectively.

Hopefully all of this is happening at a base that's not driving off members, their partners, etc. due to remoteness, mouldy quarters, appalling CoL, and so on.


----------



## FJAG (12 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> We aren't calling up reserves or draftees to head to the front.


Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.


Furniture said:


> If we want a professional military that can do the GoC's bigging on short notice, we need to pay what those people want/demand


The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.

We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.
> 
> *The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. *This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.
> 
> ...



Gold, Jerry!


----------



## childs56 (12 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.


I can see the reasons for this and I agree partially. But I disagree for the technical trades and even many non tech trades. By the time you hit five years you finally learned your job and become proficient and competent in the job itself but many no where a expert ( hence why many Trades programs have a 4 year process)  It comes down to the person who has been there for 15 years who seen that one thing break and can fix it quickly and properly.  
The mindset that everyone needs to be in a official leadership role or released after a few years is a arrow minded mindset often propagated by those in a highly educated and none understanding on how things work. Usually overly educated bored and trying to fix a problem that is non existent. I have witnessed it in the Construction Industry, Military, Oilfield and Government institutions first hand. Small highly trained and skilled work force is something to be reckoned with in any capacity. Then you can fill in the gaps with less trained or newer workforce.  
My understanding the Canadian Forces was suppose to be set up to be able to provide that highly trained Cadre that could train up, mentor and lead the mass force of new recruits to success.  Instead we have a over bloated top end of a protectionist group in HQs that would prefer to keep that office job.  They force good Officers who want to stay on the point to take a seat in order to be successful. Pilots come to mind in this one, Hey you get to fly for a few years then ride a desk for the rest. 
What we need is a focus on the force itself, that include Reserves that can plug and play into that overall success. Again lots of resistance to this overall by those in the higher positions.  


FJAG said:


> 🍻


----------



## kev994 (12 Oct 2022)

people want to WFH. 
Canadian remote workers are ready to quit if forced back to the office full time.
80 per cent of Canadians would seek new job if forced back to office, survey finds


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.
> 
> The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. _This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes _and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.
> 
> ...



I know I'm repeating myself, but ...

Actually the concept came from Eisenhower in about 1949/50 when he was making the transition from being President of Columbia University to being the brand new NATO's first SACEUR. Eisenhower wrote a brief or gave a speech - likely both, largely in response to Kennans long telegram - in which he suggested that the Soviet plan would be to station millions and millions of poorly trained conscripted soldiers on the inner-German border and, Ike said, there would be considerable pressure for the US-West/NATO to do the same. That would, he said, be the wrong response. Millions and millions of young Americans, Brits, Canadians and Danes, Eisenhower said, needed to be in their homelands, growing food, building homes and cars and refrigerators. That, he said, was how we would win the peace. There correct response, he said, was to station hundreds off thousands of well disciplined, well trained, well equipped, combat ready regulars - as a tripwire - on there inner German border and warn the Society that if they crossed the allied response would be massive nuclear retaliation of a a nearly unimaginable sort.

Hume Wrong was Canada's Ambassador in Washington and he read the brief and/or heard the talk and passed the notion on to St Laurent, who was the relatively newly installed Prime Minister. St Laurent agreed wholly with Ike and he told Brooke Claxton to get on with the job of building Canada's "new model army." Claxton did so against the wishes of his Naval and General staffs (the RCAF seems to have been on side as nearly as I can tell) who thought that the summer of 1939 was a good state to which to return.

The destruction of the militia was a long, slow process which, I agree, was done by short-sighted regulars who barely deserved the adjective professional.


----------



## childs56 (12 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> people want to WFH.
> Canadian remote workers are ready to quit if forced back to the office full time.
> 80 per cent of Canadians would seek new job if forced back to office, survey finds


good for them, they can give up their well paid jobs and go work elsewhere.  Here I was under the impression  "remote workers" meant working in isolated camps like Loggers, Oilfield, Mining not working from home.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.
> 
> 🍻



As long as those 18 year olds do not interpret "transition" with "transfer".

Personally, I can't see joining an organization with the intention of quitting to join another. I'd rather stay on for the whole ride.



Recruiter: "Where do you see yourself in five years?"

A: "Anywhere but here."

It means even if you are sucessful in "transitioning" to a compareable job ( no quarantee there ), you will become "the new kid on block" at your new organization.  Working with people five years younger than you, with five years more seniority.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2022)

childs56 said:


> I can see the reasons for this and I agree partially. But I disagree for the technical trades and even many non tech trades. By the time you hit five years you finally learned your job and become proficient and competent in the job itself but many no where a expert ( hence why many Trades programs have a 4 year process)  It comes down to the person who has been there for 15 years who seen that one thing break and can fix it quickly and properly.
> The mindset that everyone needs to be in a official leadership role or released after a few years is a arrow minded mindset often propagated by those in a highly educated and none understanding on how things work. Usually overly educated bored and trying to fix a problem that is non existent. I have witnessed it in the Construction Industry, Military, Oilfield and Government institutions first hand. Small highly trained and skilled work force is something to be reckoned with in any capacity. Then you can fill in the gaps with less trained or newer workforce.
> My understanding the Canadian Forces was suppose to be set up to be able to provide that highly trained Cadre that could train up, mentor and lead the mass force of new recruits to success.  Instead we have a over bloated top end of a protectionist group in HQs that would prefer to keep that office job.  They force good Officers who want to stay on the point to take a seat in order to be successful. Pilots come to mind in this one, Hey you get to fly for a few years then ride a desk for the rest.
> What we need is a focus on the force itself, that include Reserves that can plug and play into that overall success. Again lots of resistance to this overall by those in the higher positions.



I've been advocating for a while that it makes more sense to teach truck drivers how to soldier than it does to teach soldiers how to drive trucks.

I think that is even more true of mechanics, electricians, radar techs, cyber techs, logisticians and AI gurus.

Rather than building all those training and development structures within the CAF exploit the development of the civilian market.  Find those youngsters that are inclined to public service, military service in particular and engage them.  Help them develop their civilian lives and ensure that they are ready, willing and able to spend some time in national service throughout their careers.  Employers have trouble with people dropping out for a couple of weeks occasionally, or even a couple of months.  But perhaps taking a year long sabbatical from the civvy job to spend time doing the same job for the government would be easier.



FJAG said:


> We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.



This.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2022)

childs56 said:


> good for them, they can give up their well paid jobs and go work elsewhere.  Here I was under the impression  "remote workers" meant working in isolated camps like Loggers, Oilfield, Mining not working from home.


Me too.


----------



## FJAG (12 Oct 2022)

childs56 said:


> But I disagree for the technical trades and even many non tech trades. By the time you hit five years you finally learned your job and become proficient and competent in the job itself but many no where a expert ( hence why many Trades programs have a 4 year process) It comes down to the person who has been there for 15 years who seen that one thing break and can fix it quickly and properly.


I don't undervalue the experienced worker. They are essential firstly as shop floor leaders and as institutional memory. The problem comes in when you have a glut of highly paid wrench turners who are no more productive than a third year worker.

There always has to be a knowledge core in any field whether it's a technical trade or the infantryman. The key is selecting the best motivated individuals and making sure that they train, mentor and bring along the next generation. One also needs to understand the ratios of individuals needed in each category.

The military has a unique advantage over civilian companies in that it has a well established training regimen that brings workers to the unit already fully trained but inexperienced. For the most part unit training becomes giving individuals at all levels the experience to round out their training. One quickly reaches a point though where that becomes repetitive at which point the individual is either moved on to a more challenging leadership/mentoring role or just keeps on repeating what they already know. The retention problems the CAF are having now at the middle manager level is symptomatic of a jaded work force. The CAF has moved a vast number of middle managers into jobs that are neither interesting nor fulfilling and there are hundreds of reasons for why that is. Do we really need all the chief warrant officers and majors and lieutenant-colonels that populate Ottawa? Do we need 45 year old corporals and master corporals in the line units for them to be efficient? And how many of them no longer meet the physical standards or DAG red when needed.

The CAF's workforce is generally treated the same way as any civil service. It's a lifetime career if you want it (regardless if your productivity falls off) and you are generally paid more than the equivalent civilian in many of the fields (some fields not so much, but as an example, administrative staff generally does better in government than in private offices)

If the modern workforce is a mobile and transient one, then we better redesign the CAF workforce model to anticipate and work with that phenomenon. That includes preparing for a higher turnover rate at the lower rank levels, a much more stringent selection process for those we are prepared to retain on indefinitely, and, IMHO a proper reserve system that entices and encourages individuals who have moved on to the civilian workforce to stay on in a part-time role. That includes simple things like an education benefit that is available immediately after full-time service and not held in abeyance during part-time service; reserve force units with a proper role, worthwhile equipment and sound leadership; limited demands on civilian time, and interesting training.

🍻


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> As long as those 18 year olds do not interpret "transition" with "transfer".
> 
> Personally, I can't see joining an organization with the intention of quitting to join another. I'd rather stay on for the whole ride.
> 
> ...


The field army is a hard life, and while I don’t think emulating our model down here is ideal, there needs to be a happy medium of retention as well as new blood.  

I know folks don’t like the concept - but making EVERYONE be an Infanteer (I’ll also accept Cbt Engineer and maybe Arty and Armor too) for their first 4 years has a lot of benefits.  
   Let folks remuster from that to other trades.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> The field army is a hard life, and while I don’t think emulating our model down here is ideal, there needs to be a happy medium of retention as well as new blood.
> 
> I know folks don’t like the concept - but making EVERYONE be an Infanteer (I’ll also accept Cbt Engineer and maybe Arty and Armor too) for their first 4 years has a lot of benefits.
> Let folks remuster from that to other trades.


_I believe_ there is a great deal of merit in that - the length of combat arms (Armd, Arty, Cbt Engr, Inf) service might be as short as two years after recruit/basic (Gp 1) training - but such a system would actually help the support arms and services, especially the highly technical trades by weeding out those who are poorly suited for military life before we invest too much time, money and effort in training them.


----------



## TacticalTea (12 Oct 2022)

In an attempt to synthesize the ideas so far:

"Do your common core 2-4 years, figure out who you are and what you like, then go back to school on our dime, and return to us with a trade, full time or part time."


----------



## Furniture (12 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> In an attempt to synthesize the ideas so far:
> 
> "Do your common core 2-4 years, figure out who you are and what you like, then go back to school on our dime, and return to us with a trade, full time or part time."


But do it with reservists, because the RegF is useless...


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> In an attempt to synthesize the ideas so far:
> 
> "Do your common core 2-4 years, figure out who you are and what you like, then go back to school on our dime, and return to us with a trade, full time or part time."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> That was pretty much my take on it, lots of buzz words, some problem definition, zero solutions. It’s basically an 80 page list of ideas and buzz words. We’re going to improve life for families by improving life for families.



I’m at the point where I see _Line of Effort _and I hit the Close button…I didn’t even bother.   I’m betting it’s the typical CAF BS that seems to be the accepted norm  with a different bow on the top of the package…


----------



## markppcli (12 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> But do it with reservists, because the RegF is useless...


A brief summery “retired Military officers convinced militia only path forward.”



quadrapiper said:


> Vague idea: for trades where this is workable, moving Basic (which could incidentally be shortened/adjusted/made trade and service-specific) and initial trades training to either First Unit or First Base would also mean creating a training cell, the staffing of which would provide a not-in-unit lines rotation for a healthy collection of _other _people who wouldn't need to move as often. Fleet School plus localized BMQ, effectively.
> 
> Hopefully all of this is happening at a base that's not driving off members, their partners, etc. due to remoteness, mouldy quarters, appalling CoL, and so on.



Yes absolutely yes. Shut down and sell the mega. Technical trades do their basic in Borden and then go on to their respective trades, Sigs can do their basic in Kingston at the school there, Infantry in their regimental depots ( actually my preference would be for the Infantry school with regimental companies but I digress), ect ect, the Navy can do it in Esquimalt with the fleet school and maybe merge that with their environmental training, the Air Force can offer a power point at a suitably located Marriott or Hilton.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> A brief summery “retired Military officers convinced militia only path forward.”
> 
> 
> 
> Yes absolutely yes. Shut down and sell the mega. Technical trades do their basic in Borden and then go on to their respective trades, Sigs can do their basic in Kingston at the school there, Infantry in their regimental depots ( actually my preference would be for the Infantry school with regimental companies but I digress), ect ect, the Navy can do it in Esquimalt with the fleet school and maybe merge that with their environmental training, the Air Force can offer a power point at a suitably located Marriott or Hilton.


No mints on the pillow for the roughing it portion.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> No mints on the pillow for the roughing it portion.


Hey I stayed in a Marriott in Ft Benning a few weeks ago. It was darn unpleasant (for a Marriott).


----------



## GR66 (12 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> In an attempt to synthesize the ideas so far:
> 
> "Do your common core 2-4 years, figure out who you are and what you like, then go back to school on our dime, and return to us with a trade, full time or part time."


I think there's enough difference between the different trades that a "one size fits all" recruiting, training and retention system doesn't make sense.

Short initial contracts with rapid basic training and retention only for those who show good leadership potential make sense for the combat arms and also meets the goal of filling the Reserves with a sizeable pool of trained personnel for expansion of the Army when required.

Technical trades that have very military-specific skills which take years to develop would benefit from a long-term employment model.  Where they are supported by a larger group of less advanced tradespeople with skill-sets that fairly closely match civilian trades then a hybrid model could be used...provide civilian equivalent skills training in return for a medium period of service to fulfill the more numerous tech positions with strong incentives to continue part-time service afterward in the Reserves. 

Some highly specialized skills (IT, doctors, pilots, etc.) with particularly high training costs and high wage civilian equivalents might need a different set of incentives altogether.


----------



## markppcli (12 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> Short initial contracts with rapid basic training and retention only for those who show good leadership potential make sense for the combat arms and also meets the goal of filling the Reserves with a sizeable pool of trained personnel for expansion of the Army when required.



How does it fill the reserves ? Are we to assume Pte Bloggins, an excellent troop who’s just not showing leadership potential, is going to sign up ti serve to organization that dumped him on his ass part time?


----------



## GR66 (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> How does it fill the reserves ? Are we to assume Pte Bloggins, an excellent troop who’s just not showing leadership potential, is going to sign up ti serve to organization that dumped him on his ass part time?


There are lots of people who don't want to spend their entire working career in the military.  Give them a well paying, short-term job when they are young that has excitement and a leg up with benefits (educational, pension, medical, etc.) if they choose to join the Reserves when done.  Not all will take the option but at the very least you have a larger pool of the civilian population that now has experience with the military as well as some basic skills if the need ever comes to draw on the population to grow the military.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Yes absolutely yes. Shut down and sell the mega. Technical trades do their basic in Borden and then go on to their respective trades, Sigs can do their basic in Kingston at the school there, Infantry in their regimental depots ( actually my preference would be for the Infantry school with regimental companies but I digress), ect ect, the Navy can do it in Esquimalt with the fleet school and maybe merge that with their environmental training, the Air Force can offer a power point at a suitably located Marriott or Hilton.



So instead of centralizing everything in a place where we can make sure we have suitable equipment, enough training staff, with things done to the same standard, we should distribute it to multiple locations, that requires more people, redundant facilities/equipment, etc?

If you want to do element specific basic trainings, great, but that also requires a lot of LOE to do things like proper lesson plans. I've seen how screwed up thing get for the same course when you don't have standards, and will really depend on the instructor. Teaching a large number of people the same info to the same standard over a long period time is a challenge if you change the instructors frequently, which we do.

The side benefit is you make friends in different elements, and we're a small enough force where that can come in really handy. Also, for things like Afghanistan, not a lot of complaints on the Navy side when our budgets were getting cut so the folks getting shot at had better gear because we all knew people that were in the firing line from when we did basic.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Oct 2022)




----------



## lenaitch (12 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> As long as those 18 year olds do not interpret "transition" with "transfer".
> 
> Personally, I can't see joining an organization with the intention of quitting to join another. I'd rather stay on for the whole ride.
> 
> ...


The one-employer 30+ year career is apparently the view of a bygone (our) generation.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> The one-employer 30+ year career is apparently the view of a bygone (our) generation.



Yup.  Killed by our generation.

Died in 1985 with the Dominion Pensions and Defined Benefits Plans - at least in the private sector.


----------



## Furniture (12 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> I think there's enough difference between the different trades that a "one size fits all" recruiting, training and retention system doesn't make sense.
> 
> Short initial contracts with rapid basic training and retention only for those who show good leadership potential make sense for the combat arms and also meets the goal of filling the Reserves with a sizeable pool of trained personnel for expansion of the Army when required.
> 
> ...


The reserves are short even more people than the regulars, what about that tells people on this forum that there is a massive appetite for part time service? We already struggle to attract people to a full-time career that pays pretty well, how are we going to attract people with a couple of years of full-time, followed by a "We don't see a future for you here, but please make yourself available in the free time you have away from your new job."?

I get the appeal of the idea of a citizen soldier that costs little, but provides a massive service, but the reality is that the pool of people willing to work 9-5, then work one evening a week and one weekend a month is pretty small.


----------



## markppcli (12 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> So instead of centralizing everything in a place where we can make sure we have suitable equipment, enough training staff, with things done to the same standard, we should distribute it to multiple locations, that requires more people, redundant facilities/equipment, etc?
> 
> If you want to do element specific basic trainings, great, but that also requires a lot of LOE to do things like proper lesson plans. I've seen how screwed up thing get for the same course when you don't have standards, and will really depend on the instructor. Teaching a large number of people the same info to the same standard over a long period time is a challenge if you change the instructors frequently, which we do.
> .


Well we expect the reserves to teach BMQ out of their armouries, and have ran the course in Borden, Shilo, and Wainwright in the last 5 years so it’s clearly doable. I can’t think of any specific equipment needed to run BMQ that any base in the CF short of Dundurn wouldn’t have on hand.  With regards to standards, happily we already have that. In the case of large trades like Sig Op, Infantry, Supply Tech, ect you can create efficiencies by running BMQ and DP1 back to back with the same staff.



GR66 said:


> There are lots of people who don't want to spend their entire working career in the military.  Give them a well paying, short-term job when they are young that has excitement and a leg up with benefits (educational, pension, medical, etc.) if they choose to join the Reserves when done.  Not all will take the option but at the very least you have a larger pool of the civilian population that now has experience with the military as well as some basic skills if the need ever comes to draw on the population to grow the military.



So like a four year contract?  The exact thing we do now?


----------



## QV (12 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> In an attempt to synthesize the ideas so far:
> 
> "Do your common core 2-4 years, figure out who you are and what you like, then go back to school on our dime, and return to us with a trade, full time or part time."


Or not at all, which would be fine to.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Well we expect the reserves to teach BMQ out of their armouries, and have ran the course in Borden, Shilo, and Wainwright in the last 5 years so it’s clearly doable. I can’t think of any specific equipment needed to run BMQ that any base in the CF short of Dundurn wouldn’t have on hand.  With regards to standards, happily we already have that. In the case of large trades like Sig Op, Infantry, Supply Tech, ect you can create efficiencies by running BMQ and DP1 back to back with the same staff.



Sure but BMQ is basically Army. Less Army people outside Army bases (weirdly).

For reg force, doing it full time in a single go, St. Jean makes a lot of sense. It's pretty cheap to push through several hundred people in a week if you do it in the same spot. Given that HR is a constraint, spreading over multiple spots doesn't make sense.

Realistically, if I'm digging a trench, or leading a section attack on a ship something has gone pretty wrong, but doesn't mean I didn't learn some things in Farnham, and that it's not useful if we're generally a unified force to start that out with training together. There is probably something useful as well in getting outside your comfort zone at the very start as well.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2022)

Decentralized BMQ has been a thing for a while and is there to stay.  The sky hasn’t fallen and training is more tailored to the requirements of environments.  No need for an AVN to learn to dig a trench or take a defensive position.  Waste of time, effort and potentially candidates.


----------



## markppcli (12 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure but BMQ is basically Army. Less Army people outside Army bases (weirdly).
> 
> For reg force, doing it full time in a single go, St. Jean makes a lot of sense. It's pretty cheap to push through several hundred people in a week if you do it in the same spot. Given that HR is a constraint, spreading over multiple spots doesn't make sense.



It doesn’t make sense because a) we just send them to another location anyways, that’s thousands in extra flights per recruit; b) it makes in orders of magnitude more complex to line up training, which  means more time spent on BTL / PAT and is wasted wages; c) it extends training time by adding redundant training; finally, d) the wasted time on PAT, and the “one size fits all” standard saps moral. For combat arms recruits they are t getting the challenge the sought, for our more technical trades it’s a bit too army. Waiting on PAT is simply an exercise in watching potential crumble.


----------



## FJAG (13 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> The reserves are short even more people than the regulars, what about that tells people on this forum that there is a massive appetite for part time service? We already struggle to attract people to a full-time career that pays pretty well, how are we going to attract people with a couple of years of full-time, followed by a "We don't see a future for you here, but please make yourself available in the free time you have away from your new job."?
> 
> I get the appeal of the idea of a citizen soldier that costs little, but provides a massive service, but the reality is that the pool of people willing to work 9-5, then work one evening a week and one weekend a month is pretty small.


There are 38 million people in this country. Hundreds of thousand volunteer to coach hockey. We're looking for 20-25,000 at any given time. Surely we can generate that if we give them a good product to join. Will it work with what the Army currently offers? Let's just say that bad as it is we still have 10-15,000 at any given time. I have zero doubt that with a properly restructured, led and equipped force you will get the numbers needed.

As for regulars leaving to fill out reserve units with a leavening of experience; it all depends on how you incentivize it and run it.

I think the biggest barrier to an effective Army that is a blend of both regular and reserve service is that too many people who run the organization tend to look at what we have and say: "it's perfect the way it is" vis a vis the regular force and "it can't be fixed "vis a vis the reserve" force. We've now gone through several generations of the status quo and are rooted in it. There is a lack of vision and an abundance of risk aversion.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2022)

You do realize you are redefining the difference between Woolwich and Sandhurst?

Sandhurst trained officers to train and lead soldiers.

Woolwich trained engineers, gunners, cartographers, artificers and other members of the ordnance corps - which also supplied the navy with ordnance and gunners - and ultimately produced flyers, signallers, electricians and mechanics.

Two very different streams.  

The Army has one set of needs.  The Ordnance another entirely.


----------



## markppcli (13 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> There are 38 million people in this country. Hundreds of thousand volunteer to coach hockey. We're looking for 20-25,000 at any given time. Surely we can generate that if we give them a good product to join. Will it work with what the Army currently offers? Let's just say that bad as it is we still have 10-15,000 at any given time. I have zero doubt that with a properly restructured, led and equipped force you will get the numbers needed.
> 
> As for regulars leaving to fill out reserve units with a leavening of experience; it all depends on how you incentivize it and run it.
> 
> ...


I don’t know that coaching your child’s atom house team is really a relatable situation to reserve service. Frankly it was at its height in the late 1800s when militia regiments were basically uniformed social clubs that went camping together.


----------



## FJAG (13 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> I don’t know that coaching your child’s atom house team is really a relatable situation to reserve service. Frankly it was at its height in the late 1800s when militia regiments were basically uniformed social clubs that went camping together.


And the cadet movement was massive and designed to teach drill and marksmanship to children so as to create a valuable precursor for a _levée en masse_ military force capable of repelling the rapacious Americans. And not withstanding the social nature of those Militia regiments, they still produced the core of the Army's officers and other ranks that volunteered to go to war in large numbers not once but twice and who continued to volunteer to back up the regular army in the field for seven decades since.

The coaching analogy was merely to say that we are a country where volunteerism and devoting one's spare time to an activity that benefits the community is not dead. Create an organization that has demonstrable value and there will be more than enough participants in it.

I know I keep harping on this but for me this is a very simple issue of math. As long as the CAF put the vast number of its eggs in the RegF basket it will keep shrinking and lose capability after capability until it becomes irrelevant and incapable of providing security for the nation. The only way to up the personnel strength and the quality and amount of equipment is to find savings in personnel costs. This requires a massive downsizing of the CAF's administrative overhead and to increase the quality and quantity of the ResF. If anyone can come up with any other viable scheme other than "increase the budget" I'd be happy to hear it and get on board.

🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Oct 2022)

There’s a lot of indication/opinion opinion on what the Reserves should/could do as part of the Reconstitution…stuff (not sure I’ll call it a policy at this point…that stretch might hurt some).

Not sure about the NavRes and their health and effectiveness.  I know from the ARAF world, RCAF reservists are, generally speaking, former Reg Force mbrs with experience and knowledge in their trade.  They have the same Quals from the same TEs as the reg force mbr…they just work 12-14 days a month vice every day.  They can and do deploy with no need for XX month “work up” trg.

The Army Reserve world doesn’t work that way so it’s less valuable.   Not to kick Army Reserves or Reservists, I was one for quite a few years; this means I’ve also seen and lived the reality.  Res force soldiers do not and cannot bring the same level of ability and proficiency to the CAF as a reg force soldier as a rule (there are exceptions). 

Are Res force soldiers cheaper to the tax payer? Definitely.   Should we put most of our Army eggs in the Reserve force basket?  Nope. Never.

Here is a link to the SRP-R.   Fact Sheet – Soldier Readiness Policy – Reserve (SRP-R) - Canada.ca

10 full days a year, once every 60 days and those IBTS requirements are pretty thin.

As a tax payer, I want more from my tax dollars.  If those standards represent the avg army reservist, my mind goes to what was mentioned earlier about “social group that goes camping together” more than “combat ready land forces”.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.
> 
> The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.
> 
> ...



This is very Army centric.  The RCN and RCAF have everyday tasks to complete with highly complex and expensive machinery.  We need full time people and a bank of reserves to augment them.



KevinB said:


> The field army is a hard life, and while I don’t think emulating our model down here is ideal, there needs to be a happy medium of retention as well as new blood.
> 
> I know folks don’t like the concept - but making EVERYONE be an Infanteer (I’ll also accept Cbt Engineer and maybe Arty and Armor too) for their first 4 years has a lot of benefits.
> Let folks remuster from that to other trades.



Sure, sounds very Army.  But it has no value for RCN and I would wager the same for the RCAF folks.

Why does the combat arms constantly want to inflict its misery on everyone else ? 



markppcli said:


> A brief summery “retired Military officers convinced militia only path forward.”
> 
> 
> 
> Yes absolutely yes. Shut down and sell the mega. Technical trades do their basic in Borden and then go on to their respective trades, Sigs can do their basic in Kingston at the school there, Infantry in their regimental depots ( actually my preference would be for the Infantry school with regimental companies but I digress), ect ect, the Navy can do it in Esquimalt with the fleet school and maybe merge that with their environmental training, the Air Force can offer a power point at a suitably located Marriott or Hilton.



The RCN is doing this now from HFX and ESQ.



FJAG said:


> And the cadet movement was massive and designed to teach drill and marksmanship to children so as to create a valuable precursor for a _levée en masse_ military force capable of repelling the rapacious Americans. And not withstanding the social nature of those Militia regiments, they still produced the core of the Army's officers and other ranks that volunteered to go to war in large numbers not once but twice and who continued to volunteer to back up the regular army in the field for seven decades since.
> 
> The coaching analogy was merely to say that we are a country where volunteerism and devoting one's spare time to an activity that benefits the community is not dead. Create an organization that has demonstrable value and there will be more than enough participants in it.
> 
> ...



Again very Army centric.  The CAF is more than the Army.


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

I suspect that if the Reserves had (modern) equipment and a defined role, that recruiting would not be so much of an issue.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I suspect that if the Reserves had (modern) equipment and a defined role, that recruiting would not be so much of an issue.



On target, 100%.  One of the guys I work with in my Flt is an ex-Reg Force WO, Flight Engineer who is now a Res Sgt.  The only difference is the rate of pay and amount of days he works a month, and he doesn’t have to worry about being posted or any of that.  Draws his pension, still flies and is a very valued mbr of the Sqn. 

Same role, same equipment.  He still sits center seat on the Aurora.


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> On target, 100%.


That also may solve some of the Regular Force issues.  
    The fact the local ARNG unit down here has more modern gear than any CAF unit outside CANSOF is a little sad.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> That also may solve some of the Regular Force issues.
> The fact the local ARNG unit down here has more modern gear than any CAF unit outside CANSOF is a little sad.



I remember my first visit to Fort Knox to trg at the Mounted Warfare Simulation Centre.   We were heading to the US Calvary store just off Post in a taxi being driven by an off duty SSgt.   We passed a field about the size of football field, full of M1s with the gun locked rearward, parked in tight.

I said “what are those for?”.  The SSgt said “oh, those are just M1s that are being turned over to War Stocks from the NG units as they get their A1’s”.

That was ‘95. 

A few years later on another trip to Knox, we got to visit with the local reserve/NG Apache battalion…they’d just got back from a winter SFOR deployment.


----------



## Furniture (13 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I suspect that if the Reserves had (modern) equipment and a defined role, that recruiting would not be so much of an issue.


I suspect you are right that it would fix most of the issues, and it's something that should be achievable for a rich country like Canada. The problem is, what roles, and how expensive is the kit? Can't be issuing the troops "Cadillacs"... 



FJAG said:


> There are 38 million people in this country. Hundreds of thousand volunteer to coach hockey. We're looking for 20-25,000 at any given time. Surely we can generate that if we give them a good product to join. Will it work with what the Army currently offers? Let's just say that bad as it is we still have 10-15,000 at any given time. I have zero doubt that with a properly restructured, led and equipped force you will get the numbers needed.


I have none of the faith you do that tens of thousands of Canadians will turn up to parade in full kit just because it's shiny new kit, and the boss has done better DLN courses. 



FJAG said:


> As for regulars leaving to fill out reserve units with a leavening of experience; it all depends on how you incentivize it and run it.


If you're kicking out people from their full-time job because you don't have room for them in the new smaller RegF army, what do you think would incentivize them in numbers sufficient to matter to stick around and play at their old job on the weekends? 

Also, if they had what it takes to be the best leaders, they'd have been picked up by the RegF to stay on full-time... 

That said, I agree that the ResF needs help, and like @KevinB said, it needs a defined _realistic_ role. Capabilities that can be done part-time, and serve a purpose are great for them, capabilities that need full-time people to maintain skills, not so much. I also think the CAF needs to work harder to make transitioning RegF-> ResF, and ResF->RegF a lot easier. 



FJAG said:


> And the cadet movement was massive and designed to teach drill and marksmanship to children so as to create a valuable precursor for a _levée en masse_ military force capable of repelling the rapacious Americans. *And not withstanding the social nature of those Militia regiments, they still produced the core of the Army's officers and other ranks that volunteered to go to war in large numbers not once but twice and who continued to volunteer to back up the regular army in the field for seven decades since.*


The Militia Myth rears it's ugly head again! 

Those Militia officers were on the books full-time for years before they were leading troops in battle in WWII, they were RegF by that stage, little different from the RegF Lts and Capts leading troops in Afghanistan. That they had been part of a social club prior to the war wasn't likely a significant factor in their performance during the war. 



FJAG said:


> The coaching analogy was merely to say that we are a country where volunteerism and devoting one's spare time to an activity that benefits the community is not dead. Create an organization that has demonstrable value and there will be more than enough participants in it.


It's a false comparison, many volunteers with organizations for kids leave when their kids leave. They have to be up and at the rink already for their kid, might as well do something while they are there. Some stick around, but likely at about the same percentage as people who choose to be in the ResF for 20+ years. 



FJAG said:


> I know I keep harping on this but for me this is a very simple issue of math. *As long as the CAF put the vast number of its eggs in the RegF basket it will keep shrinking and lose capability after capability until it becomes irrelevant and incapable of providing security for the nation.* The only way to up the personnel strength and the quality and amount of equipment is to find savings in personnel costs. This requires a massive downsizing of the CAF's administrative overhead and to increase the quality and quantity of the ResF. If anyone can come up with any other viable scheme other than "increase the budget" I'd be happy to hear it and get on board.
> 
> 🍻


That will happen regardless of whether it's a small professional full-time force, or a social club with guns if Canadians and the GoC don't start to take defence seriously. Flipping positions to ResF might slow the degradation slightly, but eventually even those part-timers will be viewed as an expensive luxury. So rather than a small full-time force with delusions of grandeur, we'll have a slightly larger, more dispersed force of part-timers with delusions of grandeur. 

Fixing the CAF requires a strong ResF, but it also requires a strong RegF, with sufficient funding and public support.


----------



## FSTO (13 Oct 2022)

I brought up the equipment issue at the RCN Orientation day yesterday. Angus's answer was trying to cut down the amount of signatures required to get a project through. Now before everyone piles on, Navy procurement takes years no matter what. But the Army and Air Force can be re-equipped rather rapidly if we would just accept the fact that we don't have the numbers for boutique pieces of gear. But I would bet my pension that we have a myriad of Canadian companies who are already supplying parts to LockMart and Boeing. We should just get in line and get the gear. Despite what the Procurement Minister says, we have never gotten value for money spent on defence equipment.


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> I brought up the equipment issue at the RCN Orientation day yesterday. Angus's answer was trying to cut down the amount of signatures required to get a project through. Now before everyone piles on, Navy procurement takes years no matter what. But the Army and Air Force can be re-equipped rather rapidly if we would just accept the fact that we don't have the numbers for boutique pieces of gear. But I would bet my pension that we have a myriad of Canadian companies who are already supplying parts to LockMart and Boeing. We should just get in line and get the gear. Despite what the Procurement Minister says, we have never gotten value for money spent on defence equipment.


To increase that Canadian content, it helps to get in on the ground floor of programs.


----------



## IKnowNothing (13 Oct 2022)

This might be completely stupid (and is definitely army centric) but this issue got me thinking about other models, and the one that came to mind is the Finns.  Small core of regulars, Fixed pool of active 1 year conscripts, fixed pool of reserves (last year's conscripts), massive militia pool from all prior years.

Conscription isn't going to fly, and I don't think that excessively restricted regular core is what we should be looking for, but- what about taking that graduated fixed term service, planned turnover model and applying on a smaller scale it in a way that fits in our society?

There are 300k+ Grade 12's in Canada every year, call it half that will do College/Uni.  Paid education to get officers is great, but what about lowering the ask from a 2:1 service ratio to capture a short term, high tempo (relative to current PRes) pool of entry level NCM's?  

Proposal- contracts for 1 year of service plus 1,2, or 3 (depending on school duration) 4 month summer stints, maybe with a couple of weekends sprinkled in.  Bill it as high adventure guaranteed summer employment with partial tuition subsidy- no post grad strings attached- rather than a pact to give your 20's to the army.   Have a proactive plan to use this pool to flesh out a designated unit(s) to full strength every summer, in the 8 months between summers the assignments of this pool/ these units remain static on the books for recall purposes in a time of war.   

When the contract is over you have 4 exit streams - apply for a commission, enlist as NCM, find a PRes spot, hang em up.  With the two RegF options members (and recruiters) would be encouraged to take their education into consideration and consider any trade CAF wide that they might be qualified for.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Hey I stayed in a Marriott in Ft Benning a few weeks ago. It was darn unpleasant (for a Marriott).


While not the JW, I bet you it beats the Phenix (sic) Motor Hotel…on the 280 just west of the river…..don’t ask… 😔


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Oct 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> This might be completely stupid (and is definitely army centric) but this issue got me thinking about other models, and the one that came to mind is the Finns.  Small core of regulars, Fixed pool of active 1 year conscripts, fixed pool of reserves (last year's conscripts), massive militia pool from all prior years.
> 
> Conscription isn't going to fly, and I don't think that excessively restricted regular core is what we should be looking for, but- what about taking that graduated fixed term service, planned turnover model and applying on a smaller scale it in a way that fits in our society?
> 
> ...



I'm amazed people still think that conscript/ contract armies are a good idea, if you have a choice, having seen the Russians in action.


----------



## IKnowNothing (13 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm amazed people still think that conscript/ contract armies are a good idea, if you have a choice, having seen the Russians in action.


I guess I wasn't explicit enough, but this would be volunteer as implied by "lower the ask" and "bill it as"

Edit- also, you'd think "conscription isn't going to fly" would also hint at that

Edit- we're talking an annual pool of say 500-2000  volunteers that are in for a year for BMQ, DP1, and unit training, then come back to flesh out units built around RegF members for the next 1-3 four month summers.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm amazed people still think that conscript/ contract armies are a good idea, if you have a choice, having seen the Russians in action.



Just what we need.  A poorly trained force made up of people who don't want to be there.  

Seems to be working well in Russia.


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> While not the JW, I bet you it beats the Phenix (sic) Motor Hotel…on the 280 just west of the river…..don’t ask… 😔
> View attachment 74211


There is (was?) a Marriott in Phenix City…
     Generally Phenix is better than Columbus in most instances, but mostly GA > AL 

That looks eerily familiar to a motel I stayed in near Harpers Ferry WV.   Two shooting and a separate homicide that night (first and last I spent at that hotel).


----------



## GR66 (13 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> This is very Army centric.  The RCN and RCAF have everyday tasks to complete with highly complex and expensive machinery.  We need full time people and a bank of reserves to augment them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This goes to my point that a one size fits all system for the Reserves does not make sense.  There is a fundamental difference between the Army Reserves and the Navy/Airforce Reserves.

If a war kicks off there will not suddenly be another dozen ships added to the fleet or several additional squadrons of fighters appearing that need to be manned.  For the Army however, the expectation is that if a war kicks off the Army will use Reservists to expand the number of Battalions/Brigades/Divisions we are able to field.  That's a very fundamental difference between the Elements and strongly suggests that the way we treat the Reserves of each Element very differently.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> This goes to my point that a one size fits all system for the Reserves does not make sense.  There is a fundamental difference between the Army Reserves and the Navy/Airforce Reserves.
> 
> If a war kicks off there will not suddenly be another dozen ships added to the fleet or several additional squadrons of fighters appearing that need to be manned.  For the Army however, the expectation is that if a war kicks off the Army will use Reservists to expand the number of Battalions/Brigades/Divisions we are able to field.  That's a very fundamental difference between the Elements and strongly suggests that* the way we treat the Reserves of each Element very differently.*



In the Army, like cannon fodder? It shows


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> This goes to my point that a one size fits all system for the Reserves does not make sense.  There is a fundamental difference between the Army Reserves and the Navy/Airforce Reserves.
> 
> If a war kicks off there will not suddenly be another dozen ships added to the fleet or several additional squadrons of fighters appearing that need to be manned.  For the Army however, the expectation is that if a war kicks off the Army will use Reservists to expand the number of Battalions/Brigades/Divisions we are able to field.  That's a very fundamental difference between the Elements and strongly suggests that the way we treat the Reserves of each Element very differently.


Honestly Army equipment doesn’t grow on trees either.  
  Expanding the Army like you mentioned won’t do much more than exactly what @daftandbarmy  pointed out. 
  It’s working so well for Russia now, and they have a great deal of depth of (albeit older and questionable) equipment


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Oct 2022)

I would consider rejoining the CAF as a Reservist but the CAF would need to make the conditions more amenable for me to consider it.

1.  I'm not screwing around with PLAR assessments and quals.  I'd be willing to do a reorientation/familiarization but I'm not going back to the School house to redo DP 1. Whatever, it's not worth it.

2.  I need to be reinstated at my previous rank.  I'm not taking a pay cut to work for you again, especially when my current job pays me way more per hour than you do.  

3.  I'm not waiting around for you to get around to enrolling me.  If it takes six+ months, forget it.  My time is valuable, don't screw with it.

4.  I want my VAC benefits I earned from my Reg Force service still.  That 80k+ for education is mine and if it's off the table because I join the Reserves, forget it.  You clearly don't care about my experience or knowledge if that's the case.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I would consider rejoining the CAF as a Reservist but the CAF would need to make the conditions more amenable for me to consider it.
> 
> 1.  I'm not screwing around with PLAR assessments and quals.  I'd be willing to do a reorientation/familiarization but I'm not going back to the School house to redo DP 1. Whatever, it's not worth it.
> 
> ...


You’re (would be) asking for more than the CAF can give…

_Edit to add how it would likely go down…_

To paraphrase Xerxes:

“You may rejoin the CAF, if you will but kneel before us..and accept a lower rank, and lower pay, and apologize to us for leaving, and…..”


----------



## dangerboy (13 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I would consider rejoining the CAF as a Reservist but the CAF would need to make the conditions more amenable for me to consider it.
> 
> 4.  I want my VAC benefits I earned from my Reg Force service still.  That 80k+ for education is mine and if it's off the table because I join the Reserves, forget it.  You clearly don't care about my experience or knowledge if that's the case.


Your fourth point is one that I hear quite a lot from people I know that are releasing/released from the Regular Force.  They would have loved to join the Reserves but once they found out they would not get the benefits they said no. The Reserves are losing out on a lot of experience because of this.


----------



## GR66 (13 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly Army equipment doesn’t grow on trees either.
> Expanding the Army like you mentioned won’t do much more than exactly what @daftandbarmy  pointed out.
> It’s working so well for Russia now, and they have a great deal of depth of (albeit older and questionable) equipment


I'm suggesting that the _idea _is for the Army to be able to expand in case of war.  I'm not suggesting that the CAF has actually done anything to make that a realistic possibility to date.  On the other hand I don't believe I've ever heard any suggestion that either the RCAF or RCN will expand in case of war.


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> You’re (would be) asking for more than the CAF can give…


Which is sad, and the results speak for themselves.


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> I'm suggesting that the _idea _is for the Army to be able to expand in case of war.  I'm not suggesting that the CAF has actually done anything to make that a realistic possibility to date.  On the other hand I don't believe I've ever heard any suggestion that either the RCAF or RCN will expand in case of war.


The idea is a pipedream, solely IMHO populated by Reserve CO’s and GO/FO’s who dream of a real command.  

I suspect the RCN and RCAF know they would need to expand - but know they will have time due to the lack of equipment (albeit it seems the RCN may be able to double and just about crew all their ships)


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2022)

Sup Res members are eligible for the VAC program.  Sup Res members can be attached to P Res units.

It's not rocket surgery, but alas seems largely impossible due to CAF bureaucratic inertia.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> (albeit it seems the RCN may be able to double and just about crew all their ships)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Oct 2022)

dangerboy said:


> Your fourth point is one that I hear quite a lot from people I know that are releasing/released from the Regular Force.  They would have loved to join the Reserves but once they found out they would not get the benefits they said no. The Reserves are losing out on a lot of experience because of this.


I know dozens of my friends that have left the Reg Force over the past few years.  CA, CANSOF, RCN, RCAF, etc.  Not one of them is currently enrolled as a Reservist.

It doesn't make sense for us to become Reservists.  My pal who is a former CANSOF Operator, was just in Africa volunteering with wildlife rangers as part of a project he put together while pursuing his MBA.

You think he wouldn't volunteer some of his time to CAF as a reservist if he wouldn't lose out on education?  It's doesn't make sense.

I thought the entire purpose of a Reserve was to be able to maintain a body of civilians who can be called upon in times of war?  

How the hell does it make sense for the Reserves to not be able to use Civilians with the MOST military experience?


----------



## FSTO (13 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I know dozens of my friends that have left the Reg Force over the past few years.  CA, CANSOF, RCN, RCAF, etc.  Not one of them is currently enrolled as a Reservist.
> 
> It doesn't make sense for us to become Reservists.  My pal who is a former CANSOF Operator, was just in Africa volunteering with wildlife rangers as part of a project he put together while pursuing his MBA.
> 
> ...


Admiral Topshee mentioned that education benefit yesterday. There seems to be some movement to allow access to the benefit and enroll in the reserves,


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> Admiral Topshee mentioned that education benefit yesterday. There seems to be some movement to allow access to the benefit and enroll in the reserves,


I have seen dozens, if not hundreds of highly trained people bypass or leave Reserve service because of that stupid VAC education benefit policy. We need to fix that, fast.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> You’re (would be) asking for more than the CAF can give…
> 
> _Edit to add how it would likely go down…_
> 
> ...


Which is funny because the actual training is of a lower quality, less comprehensive and has less money put into it than when I first joined 😄


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I have seen dozens, if not hundreds of highly trained people bypass or leave Reserve service because of that stupid VAC education benefit policy. We need to fix that, fast.


It's crazy and I'll be honest, if they amended the policy I would probably walk down to the Local Armoury or Stone Frigate and re-enroll as a Class A Reservist tomorrow.

I can't promise I would be able to make every parade night or weekend because I don't have a job that's conducive to that but I would show up when I was available and I would pitch in where I could.

I also work for a Company that supports the Military, has a lot of ex-service members and who are employees (including the senior leadership of the company) and is willing to let employees take leaves of absence for Military Service.  They did so for the recent Op LENTUS deployments in BC.


----------



## Kilted (13 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> Admiral Topshee mentioned that education benefit yesterday. There seems to be some movement to allow access to the benefit and enroll in the reserves,


I'm assuming that that would also allow reservists who qualify to continue to serve in the reserves?  the whole "we can't afford to give you the $8000 we promised you, but if you leave we will give you $40,000 or whatever it is"" doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> I'm assuming that that would also allow reservists who qualify to continue to serve in the reserves?  the whole "we can't afford to give you the $8000 we promised you, but if you leave we will give you $40,000 or whatever it is"" doesn't make a lot of sense.



Huh ?


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2022)

VAC ETB is 40k after 6 years full time, 80k after 12, but after release or transfer to the Supp Res.


----------



## Kilted (13 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Huh ?


Reserves qualify for it based on number of days.


----------



## Kilted (13 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> VAC ETB is 40k after 6 years full time, 80k after 12, but after release or transfer to the Supp Res.


There is no requirement for it to be full time. It just has to mathematically add up to the same number of days.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> VAC ETB is 40k after 6 years full time, 80k after 12, but after release or transfer to the Supp Res.



Which means that about 90% of Class A reservists (Twice the Citizen) don't qualify.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Not sure about the NavRes and their health and effectiveness. I know from the ARAF world, RCAF reservists are, generally speaking, former Reg Force mbrs with experience and knowledge in their trade. They have the same Quals from the same TEs as the reg force mbr…they just work 12-14 days a month vice every day. They can and do deploy with no need for XX month “work up” trg.



This is why I have been harping, for years, on the fundamental difference be a Home Guard Militia and a properly constituted Reserve.   Ex-Regulars are a valuable commodity that should be husbanded.  Keep them around at all costs.  They can be both your training cadre for the Militia and augmentation to the Regular Force.  The Air Force in particular seems to have an effective working model.

The Militia, with the best will in the world, can not compete with either Regulars or Reserves (Ex-Regs).  On the other hand, with a different outlook and organization it can take on a lot of those jobs that the Regs are asked to do that are not frontline fighting positions.   Your boss is calling for additional disaster relief resources.  I would interpret that as more logistics and comms resources.   That means trucks, pumps, chainsaws and radios.  With enough military training to manage personal defence and first aid.

If a Militiaman wants more excitement than putting out Forest Fires then he or she can sign up on a short contract with the Regs and retire back into the Reserves, with additional benefits, when that time is up.  Or pursue a career with the Regs or the Militia cadre.



Halifax Tar said:


> This is very Army centric. The RCN and RCAF have everyday tasks to complete with highly complex and expensive machinery. We need full time people and a bank of reserves to augment them.





IKnowNothing said:


> This might be completely stupid (and is definitely army centric) but this issue got me thinking about other models, and the one that came to mind is the Finns.  Small core of regulars, Fixed pool of active 1 year conscripts, fixed pool of reserves (last year's conscripts), massive militia pool from all prior years.
> 
> Conscription isn't going to fly, and I don't think that excessively restricted regular core is what we should be looking for, but- what about taking that graduated fixed term service, planned turnover model and applying on a smaller scale it in a way that fits in our society?
> 
> ...



I don't like conscripts.  I prefer the Danish homeguard.  Entirely voluntary.



Humphrey Bogart said:


> I would consider rejoining the CAF as a Reservist but the CAF would need to make the conditions more amenable for me to consider it.
> 
> 1.  I'm not screwing around with PLAR assessments and quals.  I'd be willing to do a reorientation/familiarization but I'm not going back to the School house to redo DP 1. Whatever, it's not worth it.
> 
> ...



This is just dumb.  An unserious organization (although I struggle to call it that) playing silly buggers.

But I do believe that the original sin is in the Regular Force co-opting the Militia as a Reserve Force.   The Militia terms of service are entirely unsuitable for generating a proper Reserve.  On the other hand keeping in touch with ex-Regs, to fall in with their mates on systems they trained on, shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

The Militia are not Reserves.  The CAF and the Government have the ability to create Reserves from released soldiers quite easily - and engage them on the same terms are the RCAF and the RCN.

And if the Militia feels that it leaves them out in the cold - well at least you will have one common set of problems to address independently of the desire to create a functional reserve for a cost effective force.

And, to keep the Honouraries happy you could always lump a couple of companies/squadrons/batteries of Reserves of ex-Regs together with a bunch of Militia companies under one Regiment for local administration.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2022)

I suppose this is one thing about which Canadians can't brag about how we do compared to Americans.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2022)

> About one-third of Veterans are of core working age​*In 2021, 461,240 people were counted as Veterans* (see note to readers) in the census. This 2021 Census count is lower than the modelled estimates produced by VAC. Several factors may contribute to this difference. The census information is mainly collected through self-enumeration, which is a different method than the modelling employed by VAC. Also, the census provides a snapshot of the population at a specific moment in time (May 11, 2021). For more details, please refer to the _Canadian Military Experience Reference Guide, Census of Population, 2021_ and the summary technical report: _Veterans data in the 2021 Census of Population_.
> 
> Key findings about Canadian Veterans from the 2021 Census so far​A clearer picture of Canadian Veterans has already begun to emerge with the release of 2021 Census data on the population as a whole by age, gender, living arrangements and place of residence.
> 
> Results show that *almost one-third (32.0%) of all Veterans *counted at the time of the census *were in the core working age group of 25 to 54.* Forthcoming census data on labour, to be released in November 2022, will enable analysis of Veterans' experiences in the labour market after their years of service.








						The Daily — On guard for thee: serving in the Canadian Armed Forces
					

For the first time in 50 years, Statistics Canada asked Canadians about their military service on the 2021 Census of Population. According to new data from the census, there were 97,625 Canadians counted as serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and 461,240 Veterans in spring 2021.




					www150.statcan.gc.ca
				




32% of 461,240 is 147,597 between the ages of 25 and 54.  

There is your Reserve Force opportunity.  Most of that will have slipped through fingers by this time but a Reserve Force target of 150,000 over time should be achievable.  What would it take to draw Humphrey and his mates, those that have been out for less than seven years, back into the fold?  You seem to be releasing at the rate of 5 to 10 thousand per year.   7 years of recovered releases would create a Reserve of 35 to 70,000 in short order.


----------



## IKnowNothing (13 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I don't like conscripts.  I prefer the Danish homeguard.  Entirely voluntary.


Neither do I. But I do like the idea of tailoring a service model to a stage of life that meshes well with both
A-a high volume of potential recruits
B-a more rigorous training/operational tempo than allowed by someone with a full-time job

500 per year = 1000-2000 Privates, Troopers, and Gunners trained and organized to fill out @FJAG 's hybrid ABCT


----------



## Kilted (13 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Which means that about 90% of Class A reservists (Twice the Citizen) don't qualify.



Depends on how long they have served for, and how often they parade. It's not unheard of for some Class A people to do over 100 days Class A days a year. It might take a bit longer, but there are still a number of people who would qualify for it. On top of that you would have the Class B crowd as well.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Neither do I. But I do like the idea of tailoring a service model to a stage of life that meshes well with both
> A-a high volume of potential recruits
> B-a more rigorous training/operational tempo than allowed by someone with a full-time job



No argument.  But I'll choose carrot over stick every time.  

I would also ensure that the volunteers be given a choice of an array of terms of service - including ones that appeal to those that want to help but don't want to kill.  A Conscientious Objector company in every Regiment?


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> Depends on how long they have served for, and how often they parade. It's not unheard of for some Class A people to do over 100 days Class A days a year. It might take a bit longer, but there are still a number of people who would qualify for it. On top of that you would have the Class B crowd as well.



Any Reservist parading more than 100 days Class A a year is usually a double dipping retired Reg F Officer/SNCO who needs the money for the second divorce, so probably qualifies anyways


----------



## IKnowNothing (13 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> No argument.  But I'll choose carrot over stick every time.
> 
> I would also ensure that the volunteers be given a choice of an array of terms of service


Fully voluntary. In this case the carrot is the terms of service.  Full-time employment for gap year before going to school, guaranteed off-term employment every summer until graduation, maybe throw in a 10% per tuition subsidy per term for every 4 month block of service (4 to 6 depending on the length of post secondary program).


----------



## Kilted (13 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Any Reservist parading more than 100 days Class A a year is usually a double dipping retired Reg F Officer/SNCO who needs the money for the second divorce, so probably qualifies anyways


I know quite a few Pte-Sgt with no prior service who hit this mark every year, many of which are in their 20-30s.


----------



## TacticalTea (13 Oct 2022)

In any case, it's quite clear that the three elements have vastly different needs in terms of part-timers and there is no need to even attempt to build symmetrical reserve systems. In that sense, it is perfectly sensible and normal that a discussion on the Army's reserves would be ''Army-centric''.

Regarding the ETB for reservists; there's plenty of reservists who take a number of Class B or C contracts for 6 months to 3 years. The Class A days can easily top off the remaining days on the counter, especially if they take part in Exercises and DOMOPS (Laser, Lentus).


----------



## Furniture (13 Oct 2022)

This is supposed to be CAF reconstitution, not another "how do we fix the reserves" thread.

I get that some think the ResF is the way forward, but less not go completely down that rabbit hole yet again.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> In any case, it's quite clear that the three elements have vastly different needs in terms of part-timers and there is no need to even attempt to build symmetrical reserve systems. In that sense, it is perfectly sensible and normal that a discussion on the Army's reserves would be ''Army-centric''.



We have a plethora of threads for that. 



Furniture said:


> This is supposed to be CAF reconstitution, not another "how done fix the reserves" thread.
> 
> I get that some think the ResF is the way forward, but less not go completely down that rabbit hole yet again.



Took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## FJAG (13 Oct 2022)

This is probably one of the best discussions we've had in a long time about the impediments to a seamless transfer to the reserves and reserves in general. I'm just going to add a few more thoughts here.



Furniture said:


> I suspect you are right that it would fix most of the issues, and it's something that should be achievable for a rich country like Canada. The problem is, what roles, and how expensive is the kit? Can't be issuing the troops "Cadillacs"...


That is never a valid viewpoint but it is one that permeates our entire system.

Regardless of whether you support the ARNG mobilization concept or the Canadian augmentee concept, the ultimate goal is to create a ResF soldier, sailor or aviator who can take his place in combat. That requires the best system that Canada can procure and the best training on that system.

I'm actually an advocate for retaining useable kit we're replacing and leaving it with the reserves in order to train on and, in a pinch, to fight with but quite clearly it needs to have a planned upgrade path to the newer version in due course, maybe at the end of the production run, but eventually. Its the way that the US Army does it and it keeps training moving forward and keeps a viable force in lay even if parts of it aren't the most modern at any given time.


Furniture said:


> If you're kicking out people from their full-time job because you don't have room for them in the new smaller RegF army, what do you think would incentivize them in numbers sufficient to matter to stick around and play at their old job on the weekends?


You're not kicking them out. You enroll them for a fixed term with clear options at the end of the term. An offer for a further term in one of two systems. You incentivize both forks. I think the discussion so far establishes that there are individuals who would choose the reserve route. Hell, I did.


Furniture said:


> Also, if they had what it takes to be the best leaders, they'd have been picked up by the RegF to stay on full-time...


IMHO a properly constructed ResF will have RegF leaders and administrators.


Furniture said:


> That said, I agree that the ResF needs help, and like @KevinB said, it needs a defined _realistic_ role. Capabilities that can be done part-time, and serve a purpose are great for them, capabilities that need full-time people to maintain skills, not so much. I also think the CAF needs to work harder to make transitioning RegF-> ResF, and ResF->RegF a lot easier.


This is where I think the RegF viewpoint of the ResF is entirely wrong. The RegF focuses on "what are you doing for me today" rather than considering the ResF a standby force to be engaged quickly in case of an emergency (whether domestic or war time)

A properly constructed ResF has no peacetime role or purpose other than to train for domestic and international operations. If there is a job that requires to be done day-to-day in peacetime then it's a RegF job and position. I'll go so far as to say that the ResF might also provide temporary replacements in vital jobs when a RegF incumbent is away from their position (such as a course or parental leave)



Furniture said:


> The Militia Myth rears it's ugly head again!
> 
> Those Militia officers were on the books full-time for years before they were leading troops in battle in WWII, they were RegF by that stage, little different from the RegF Lts and Capts leading troops in Afghanistan. That they had been part of a social club prior to the war wasn't likely a significant factor in their performance during the war.


Which doesn't negate the argument. Many of those Militiamen were GOFOs and senior staff officers and senior NCOs who did not have decades of fulltime experience but picked up the skills on the job. Nothing says that even these days that there won't be time for ResF members to do predeployment training.

The biggest problem with your position, however, is that it doesn't see beyond the militia model that currently exists. If you change the model so that ResF members get the same DP1/DP2 training on proper equipment as the RegF during summer months while students and if they are lead at the company and above level by a half dozen or so RegF officers and senior NCOs who have full-time experience for that level of command and if their battalion and brigade officers and top senior NCOs are RegF then you have all the capability that the RegF has now.


Furniture said:


> That will happen regardless of whether it's a small professional full-time force, or a social club with guns if Canadians and the GoC don't start to take defence seriously. Flipping positions to ResF might slow the degradation slightly, but eventually even those part-timers will be viewed as an expensive luxury. So rather than a small full-time force with delusions of grandeur, we'll have a slightly larger, more dispersed force of part-timers with delusions of grandeur.
> 
> Fixing the CAF requires a strong ResF, but it also requires a strong RegF, with sufficient funding and public support.


I think that you've put your finger on why the RegF won't fix the ResF.

RegF leadership instinctively believes that if a reformed ResF looks to be a viable option then the RegF will be cut. That's always been a problem with the division between a wartime force and a peacetime force. A peacetime force has to justify its existence every day. The end of the cold war was a crisis point for western armies that were founded on the principle of a full-time professional army that could react immediately to a Soviet invasion. Once that threat disappeared (or appeared to disappear) the necessity for a fulltime force was reduced to just sufficient troops to keep capability skills alive and a very small quick reaction force for contingencies.

At that point one should have reverted to a large reserve force model but the CAF hung on protecting every PY it could manage and going through extremes of capability divestiture to stretch their budgets to keep paying full-timers and a massive bureaucracy. We did that around the perceived necessity to interfere in failed states.

That model failed. It needed massive support from reservists in Bosnia and then needed to to create a managed readiness and managed equipment program to keep struggling along. If you consider a readiness cycle to take one year to reconstitute and train for "high readiness" you could just a simply have had the leadership and technician core of a battalion as full-timers and recruit two thirds of the battle group off the street for a two year contract and train them for their roles.

The problem with the GoC is that it won't change. There may have been ups and downs but basically all parties are basically the same. Defence capabilities are a vague concept to them. Same with the civil service who for the most part are bean counters. They need to see viable options and all they are really being presented with is one option: a PY based option without a clear understanding of capabilities. That needs to change.

And just as an aside, if the ResF is or becomes a social club with guns it's because that's what the RegF leadership wants it to be.



GR66 said:


> If a war kicks off there will not suddenly be another dozen ships added to the fleet or several additional squadrons of fighters appearing that need to be manned. For the Army however, the expectation is that if a war kicks off the Army will use Reservists to expand the number of Battalions/Brigades/Divisions we are able to field. That's a very fundamental difference between the Elements and strongly suggests that the way we treat the Reserves of each Element very differently.


I'll leave aside the RCAF for the time being because I can't see their ResF system working well except in the case of retired RegF members and perhaps such specialty fields as airfield construction and security.

For the RCN there is a key factor which is the high maintenance needs that ships have which leave a significant number alongside where the need for a full crew (or even any crew) is unnecessary. At first blush it would appear one could do with less full-time crews than there are ships. There is, however, the amount of "at sea time" for a ship that is active (whether training or operational) and whether a given crew on, let's say a two year posting to an active ship, would burn out.

As you say, there will probably not be a rapid buildup of new ships but there should be an increase in the number of existing ships going active if the fleet went from a peacetime footing to a wartime one and all ships deployed. It strikes me that this would create a significant surge in demand for crews.

My question is, what would be a viable ResF model for the RCN to cater to this situation and do we have the plan and model for that now with the existing Naval ResF?

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> This is supposed to be CAF reconstitution, not another "how done fix the reserves" thread.
> 
> I get that some think the ResF is the way forward, but less not go completely down that rabbit hole yet again.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Oct 2022)

@FJAG  the problem with the ResF Navy is much the same as the Air Force.  Once you introduce any sort of complex weapon systems, sensors or ships with capabilities greater than an MCDV, a Reservist isn't going to cut it anymore for the most part.

There are certain trades where they can slide in but most would be off limits to them and outside their capabilities.


----------



## FJAG (13 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> This is supposed to be CAF reconstitution, not another "how done fix the reserves" thread.
> 
> I get that some think the ResF is the way forward, but less not go completely down that rabbit hole yet again.


You're right, it's a thread about CAF reconstitution. But it's not a thread about RegF reconstitution. If you ignore the ResF you are simply perpetuating the CAF problem. 



Humphrey Bogart said:


> @FJAG  the problem with the ResF Navy is much the same as the Air Force.  Once you introduce any sort of complex weapon systems, sensors or ships with capabilities greater than an MCDV, a Reservist isn't going to cut it anymore for the most part.
> 
> There are certain trades where they can slide in but most would be off limits to them and outside their capabilities.


Can that be changed within a framework of trade training the hell out of reservists during their school summer breaks and adding simulators at stone frigates for continuation training coupled with a two week "summer camp" on a ship with RegF leadership.

My understanding is that there are some 5,000 Naval Reservists who if trained up could crew 20-30 ships. Are we simply wasting most of their lives for the benefit of generating a handful Class Bs and Cs every year?

🍻


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> @FJAG  the problem with the ResF Navy is much the same as the Air Force.


The RCAF operated (maybe still?) Res Tac Hel Squadrons, sure most are former Reg pilots - but it gives a model for the more complex systems to be seamlessly integrated 


Humphrey Bogart said:


> Once you introduce any sort of complex weapon systems, sensors or ships with capabilities greater than an MCDV, a Reservist isn't going to cut it anymore for the most part.
> 
> There are certain trades where they can slide in but most would be off limits to them and outside their capabilities.


Or you could make it financially incentivized to take a gap year after High School and do a Class C for some of that training.

Pte to Cpl in the PRes is (was) 2 years, IIRC the Naval Reserve held it to 4 (this is years ago so I may have a failing brain) but year as a Pet(3) or Cpl making money for college could go along way for some.
   If one joins the Res at 17, probably Grade 11, you get 1 full summer, and then a year and 3 months ish in the gap - you could do a lot of training in that segment, that would make for 1) a Decent Part Time soldier, or 2) Someone who wants to join the Regs.


----------



## IKnowNothing (13 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Or you could make it financially incentivized to take a gap year after High School and do a Class C for some of that training.
> 
> Pte to Cpl in the PRes is (was) 2 years, IIRC the Naval Reserve held it to 4 (this is years ago so I may have a failing brain) but year as a Pet(3) or Cpl making money for college could go along way for some.
> If one joins the Res at 17, probably Grade 11, you get 1 full summer, and then a year and 3 months ish in the gap - you could do a lot of training in that segment, that would make for 1) a Decent Part Time soldier, or 2) Someone who wants to join the Regs.


Also..... a pool of people that have had that training and have a fixed number of 4 month summers where they will be needing employment


----------



## Lumber (13 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Can that be changed within a framework of trade training the hell out of reservists during their school summer breaks and adding simulators at stone frigates for continuation training coupled with a two week "summer camp" on a ship with RegF leadership.
> 
> My understanding is that there are some 5,000 Naval Reservists who if trained up could crew 20-30 ships. Are we simply wasting most of their lives for the benefit of generating a handful Class Bs and Cs every year?
> 
> 🍻


Short answer to you question in yellow: yes. 

Medium answer: the purpose of NavRes, as described to me by SJS, and from what I realized myself after three years working with the reserves, is no more than to make the public aware (in areas outside the coasts) that we actually have a Navy. 

Longer answer: as @Humphrey Bogart said, the level of training and experience required to effectively do your job on a major surface combatant is just not feasible for naval reservists, with a few exceptions, such as Boatswains, Cooks, Clerks, and NavComms. Some trades don't even exist in the reserves because there is no way to maintain their currency at an NRD, such as NESOPS and Weng Techs (though I believe they've started trying to incorporate them). 

Adding simulators to train combat operators wouldn't be possible. We have a hard enough time paying for/maintaining and crewing our combat simulators in Halifax and Victoria; there would be no way to build, maintain, and crew something like that elsewhere (not to mention the security requirements).

"Summer camp" aboard ship is already being attempted, but isn't working. There are already not enough spots aboard ships that are actually sailing to keep all the RegF people trained and current, especially the Engineers. Even when they do find room aboard ship, the reservists generally are so far behind, that they spend their whole time playing catch-up, and haven't really learned anything new or become "proficient" by the time they go home.


----------



## TacticalTea (13 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> Longer answer: as @Humphrey Bogart said, the level of training and experience required to effectively do your job on a major surface combatant is just not feasible for naval reservists, with a few exceptions, such as Boatswains, Cooks, Clerks, and NavComms. *Some trades* don't even exist in the reserves because there is no way to maintain their currency at an NRD, such as NESOPS and Weng Techs (though I believe they've started trying to incorporate them).


Most trades, actually. If I'm not forgetting any, you were only missing MarTech, IntOp, NCIop, SuppTech and Musician.


Lumber said:


> Adding simulators to train combat operators wouldn't be possible. We have a hard enough time paying for/maintaining and crewing our combat simulators in Halifax and Victoria; there would be no way to build, maintain, and crew something like that elsewhere (not to mention the security requirements).
> 
> "Summer camp" aboard ship is already being attempted, but isn't working. There are already not enough spots aboard ships that are actually sailing to keep all the RegF people trained and current, especially the Engineers. Even when they do find room aboard ship, the reservists generally are so far behind, that they spend their whole time playing catch-up, and haven't really learned anything new or become "proficient" by the time they go home.


I'd suggest that the problem isn't that FJAG's ideas are impossible to implement, but that the Navy is just in such a sorry state that we do not currently have any room to maneuver.

The ''summer camps'' idea seems to be working fine with the RegF NWO students that have been taken from PAT to place them on ships such as Brandon.

I must echo what he said previously; it would be hazardous to miss the forest for the trees. Just because an idea can't work in the current conditions, doesn't mean we should abandon all hope of change.


----------



## TacticalTea (13 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> Medium answer: the purpose of NavRes, as described to me by SJS, and from what I realized myself after three years working with the reserves, is no more than to make the public aware (in areas outside the coasts) that we actually have a Navy.


So the question then is, in the event of a major, protracted naval engagement, how do we deploy all our ships?

How would we surge our naval capabilities? In the current construct, and how would we ideally surge our naval capabilities in the best of worlds? What would be the best way to prepare and be ready to surge our capabilities in a major protracted naval engagement?


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> So the question then is, in the event of a major, protracted naval engagement, how do we deploy all our ships?
> 
> How would we surge our naval capabilities? In the current construct, and how would we ideally surge our naval capabilities in the best of worlds? What would be the best way to prepare and be ready to surge our capabilities in a major protracted naval engagement?


Hope it ends before you need to show up?

It seems to work for the Army


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> @FJAG  the problem with the ResF Navy is much the same as the Air Force.  Once you introduce any sort of complex weapon systems, sensors or ships with capabilities greater than an MCDV, a Reservist isn't going to cut it anymore for the most part.
> 
> There are certain trades where they can slide in but most would be off limits to them and outside their capabilities.



So here's the question.   I am of the opinion, at least compared to some of our allies, that the RCN overmans its hulls.  By definition this is a peacetime practice.

In war time, if all hulls went to sea, would those ships be crewed with skinnier complements?  Or would they be fleshed out with Reservists?  Reservists meaning recently released Regs with time afloat.  Similar to the RCAF Reservists.   And, conceivably, the Ordnance Corps Reservists?


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> So here's the question.   I am of the opinion, at least compared to some of our allies, that the RCN overmans its hulls.  By definition this is a peacetime practice.


I think you mean theoretically overmans -- just judging by a lot of the RCN and Ex-RCN folks posting these days, they aren't overmanned as they are not sailing with full complements.


Kirkhill said:


> In war time, if all hulls went to sea, would those ships be crewed with skinnier complements?  Or would they be fleshed out with Reservists?  Reservists meaning recently released Regs with time afloat.  Similar to the RCAF Reservists.   And, conceivably, the Ordnance Corps Reservists?


----------



## TacticalTea (13 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> that the RCN overmans its hulls


Definitely not the case currently (ships have been going out with reduced manning), or normally when compared to the USN. Admittedly that is a very small sample, I'm not familiar with how other navies operate and the US is an outlier in just about everything.


Kirkhill said:


> In war time, if all hulls went to sea, would those ships be crewed with skinnier complements? Or would they be fleshed out with Reservists? Reservists meaning recently released Regs with time afloat. Similar to the RCAF Reservists. And, conceivably, the Ordnance Corps Reservists?


Presumably, but as @Lumber highlighted, there is only a very limited number of trades for which NavRes can currently provide. Such that NavRes could not really facilitate the all-around crewing of anything other than an MCDV, a carryover from when it used to be responsible for that class of ships.

Think ''okay, I have 20 ships' worth of boatswains, but I'm still short 10 ships' worth of technicians. What does that do for me?''


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2022)

There are not 5,000 members of the P Res within the RCN.  Not even close.


----------



## stoker dave (13 Oct 2022)

Regarding 'over-manning' (over-personning?) ships, all three ships that sailed for the Gulf War in 1990 had their ship's company increased by about 25% to include all the people required.  I know we carried an expanded medical team and a lawyer but I don't know remember who else got added (some ops room people and sea training comes to mind).     Bunks were added here, there and everywhere to accommodate all the extra bodies.   So my experience is that in time of war, the ship's company swells beyond what the ship was built for.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Oct 2022)

stoker dave said:


> Regarding 'over-manning' (over-personning?) ships, all three ships that sailed for the Gulf War in 1990 had their ship's company increased by about 25% to include all the people required.  I know we carried an expanded medical team and a lawyer but I don't know remember who else got added (some ops room people and sea training comes to mind).     Bunks were added here, there and everywhere to accommodate all the extra bodies.   So my experience is that in time of war, the ship's company swells beyond what the ship was built for.


Extra Air Defence; a weapons tech land; photographer; public affairs officer; the Air Det (at least on PRO) was well above its normal peacetime complement. Those are the ones I can think of, offhand, without checking some of the books on Op Friction.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I think you mean theoretically overmans -- just judging by a lot of the RCN and Ex-RCN folks posting these days, they aren't overmanned as they are not sailing with full complements.


Right you are!

That conversation confuses me.  At the same time the RCN plans for more sailors per hull in the CSCs, and for that matter the AOPSs, than the minimum design standards, and allied practice, it bemoans the absence of sailors to man the existing hulls.


----------



## FJAG (13 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> There are not 5,000 members of the P Res within the RCN.  Not even close.


So once again Wikipedia lied to me. I note the RCN webpage says 4,100. I take it form your post that that's probably a bit optimistic too.

😁


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2022)

Much as it pains me to say so, I trust the RCN's number


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Oct 2022)

Getting people to go to sea at all is a real issue everywhere, for commercial and Federal fleets. If you want Engineers you better start training them young, like in Sea Cadets and pay for them to get experience and training. Double up on the Orca's or similar and get people interested in the various non-combat sea trades early on.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2022)

I suspect that with the tight labour market we will see increased opportunities for paid apprenticeships, with some educational institutions (mostly community colleges) losing students.

Employers will have to swing back to developing employee skills on their own dime.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Getting people to go to sea at all is a real issue everywhere, for commercial and Federal fleets. If you want Engineers you better start training them young, like in Sea Cadets and pay for them to get experience and training. Double up on the Orca's or similar and get people interested in the various non-combat sea trades early on.


Sounds like we need some kind of program to encourage maritime careers and training. For a country surrounded by water on 3 sides we sure do not put emphasis on naval careers be it military or civilian. Perhaps a education reimbursement program, as well as an aggressive marketing campaign could start getting bodies in the door in the civilian sector atleast.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Oct 2022)

The commercial sector generally treats their people (and vessels) like crap. BC Ferries can't get crew because they keep people on causal for a year(s) and expect them to be available all the time. The small tugboat companies try to run the boats with two people when it should be 3-4 and end up killing people. TC is part of that problem as well. Even the big companies are trying to cut wages, while wondering why people aren't pounding on the door for jobs. The whole marine industry seems dysfunctional and the RCN is by no means the worse employer.


----------



## Furniture (13 Oct 2022)

Based on recent experiences, one of my first fixes for reconstitution would be to immediately cease all use of memos, replace them with emails, and electronic forms in MM/online. This prevents admin from being "lost" on its way up the chain and removes the ridiculous typewriter and thousand-miler era system we currently have.  

It would also remove the CoCs ability to prevent/hinder a member's request by using process. i.e., "correcting" the wording in a memo five times because each person up the chain prefers different phrasing.


----------



## TacticalTea (13 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> Based on recent experiences, one of my first fixes for reconstitution would be to immediately cease all use of memos, replace them with emails, and electronic forms in MM/online. This prevents admin from being "lost" on its way up the chain and removes the ridiculous typewriter and thousand-miler era system we currently have.
> 
> It would also remove the CoCs ability to prevent/hinder a member's request by using process. i.e., "correcting" the wording in a memo five times because each person up the chain prefers different phrasing.


I see we both just got back from the thread about the guy waiting two weeks for a lost leave pass...


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2022)

About 15 years ago, my email trail of grievance to the Adjt, grievance to the CO, grievance to the formation commander, with date stamps, had a very positive outcome...


----------



## Furniture (13 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> I see we both just got back from the thread about the guy waiting two weeks for a lost leave pass...


Yeah, I got home from working with a guy eight days into a 30-day release, but only on day two of having his return from IR memo approved... 

I realized my next comments were likely more useful here than in a separate thread about leave passes.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Sounds like we need some kind of program to encourage maritime careers and training. For a country surrounded by water on 3 sides we sure do not put emphasis on naval careers be it military or civilian. Perhaps a education reimbursement program, as well as an aggressive marketing campaign could start getting bodies in the door in the civilian sector atleast.



There may be water on three sides but there is an awful lot of country that wouldn't recognize Odysseus's Oar.


----------



## GR66 (13 Oct 2022)

One thing I'm fairly certain of is that with this "Reconstitution" taking place the eyes of the CAF leadership is firmly focused on the Reg Force manning issues and will spare absolutely ZERO time trying to address the problems of the Reserves.  I'd expect status quo for minimum 5 years.


----------



## Furniture (13 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> One thing I'm fairly certain of is that with this "Reconstitution" taking place the eyes of the CAF leadership is firmly focused on the Reg Force manning issues and will spare absolutely ZERO time trying to address the problems of the Reserves.  I'd expect status quo for minimum 5 years.


Likely because the RegF staffing is the biggest problem right now... You prioritize what needs fixing _now_, vs. what can wait a bit longer.

Regardless of esteemed forum member's opinions, the RegF is still the primary arm of the GoC, so it is the primary focus. Once the crisis is abated in the RegF, serious efforts at fixing the ResF are needed.

I may be one of the overpaid, useless, waste of rations RegF members, but I also recognize that Canada needs a strong, ResF with a useful raison d'être.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2022)

The Reg F has arguably been broken since post-FRP and has repeatedly failed to fix itself.

Time to clean house and bring in professional management, instead of continuing with the current management perhaps.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Oct 2022)

GR66 said:


> One thing I'm fairly certain of is that with this "Reconstitution" taking place the eyes of the CAF leadership is poorly focused on the Reg Force manning conflicting issues and will spare absolutely ZERO time trying to address the problems of the Reserves CAF writ large.  I'd expect status quo gradual decline for minimum 5 years until a new government is formed, potentially


Fixed some minor things here....


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> I brought up the equipment issue at the RCN Orientation day yesterday. Angus's answer was trying to cut down the amount of signatures required to get a project through. Now before everyone piles on, Navy procurement takes years no matter what. But the Army and Air Force can be re-equipped rather rapidly if we would just accept the fact that we don't have the numbers for boutique pieces of gear. But I would bet my pension that we have a myriad of Canadian companies who are already supplying parts to LockMart and Boeing. We should just get in line and get the gear. Despite what the Procurement Minister says, we have never gotten value for money spent on defence equipment.


? Almost none of the signatures are on the CRCN side. Most approval gates are outside of DND's swimlanes. Because of the dollar value of most procurements things like IRBs kick in that require 100% Canadian offsets.

The only real thing CRCN can do is stop beating the ever living shit out of the current fleet with an insane fleet sched without effective maintenance periods and consider tying some up so we can crew them at levels where we stop burning people out and have a hope of doing proper maintenance. Also, maybe stop it with the stupid pins and badges.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> So here's the question.   I am of the opinion, at least compared to some of our allies, that the RCN overmans its hulls.  By definition this is a peacetime practice.
> 
> In war time, if all hulls went to sea, would those ships be crewed with skinnier complements?  Or would they be fleshed out with Reservists?  Reservists meaning recently released Regs with time afloat.  Similar to the RCAF Reservists.   And, conceivably, the Ordnance Corps Reservists?


We are sailing our ships with the bare minimum of people to be basically effective, because that's how many people we have to sail them. That doesn't give enough people to do things like basic maintenance, and completion rates is in the low double figures, which leads to lots of things breaking. Because more things are broken, it takes more people to operate properly, but we don't actually augment the crews unless things are really screwed. All of which is entirely predictable and known, but we do it anyway.

In wartime you sail with a lot more people so that the multi-billion dollar ship can take damage and keep fighting.

Our crewing philosophy is the same as the RN, RAN, RNZN and some other allies, which is roughly half the crew you would find on a USN ship. The USN reduced crewing model didn't actually work, and why they had to significantly increase the crews.

You can get away with less crew if you treat the ships as sacrificial and assume they won't survive any actual damage I guess, but given how long it takes to build them that seems like a bad plan. Plus ships not surviving means crews are significantly less likely to survive unless there are other ships in the area.

It also assumes that remote control will always work and never breaks, in a very complex system with highly interconnected subsystems. That falls apart pretty quickly in the real world, which is why it really makes a difference to have skilled technicians with a really good understanding of the control system and experience with it sailing. We're short them as well.

A lot of the numbers are required to do things like shore support, training, work on getting new ships etc, so it's not like everyone in the RCN could go on a ship tomorrow and somehow magically put them to sea. Shear numbers isn't necessary; it's the right number of people with the necessary skillset/quals at the correct mix of ranks. We have a whack of brand new people, a lot of senior people past their sailing schedule, but missing that core MS-PO. And folks are getting promoted so fast now that there is a huge experience gap compared to even a decade ago. Which of course, isn't being taken into consideration at all.

It's not due to a lack of blood, sweat and tears, as there are a lot of people burning themselves out trying to keep the wheels on, but things have been running past the breaking point for a long time.


----------



## FSTO (13 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> ? Almost none of the signatures are on the CRCN side. Most approval gates are outside of DND's swimlanes. Because of the dollar value of most procurements things like IRBs kick in that require 100% Canadian offsets.


I understand that, and I'm pretty sure Angus does as well. I'm thinking he meant working with the outside agencies to reduce the signature requirements.
That 100% offset has to be the dumbest thing ever or am I the idjit and every nation does it.?


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> I understand that, and I'm pretty sure Angus does as well. I'm thinking he meant working with the outside agencies to reduce the signature requirements.
> That 100% offset has to be the dumbest thing ever or am I the idjit and every nation does it.?


The 100% offset is dumb, but yes, most nations do some form of it. There are a lot of multiplying factors, so it isn't a 1 for 1, but just building ships in Canada meets a huge portion of it just in payroll and supply chain alone.

The outside agencies (ie TBS, ISED etc) don't actually care what DND thinks though, let alone what CRCN does. Honestly also not his place to work with outside agencies on procurement issues; that's all within the VCDS shop really. We do keep a few sacrificial uniform people in the PSPC NSS office though just so folks in other departments are regularly reminded that there are actual sailors on the ships.

The core policies though aren't new, and most existed prior to the LPC, as did most approval gates.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2022)

But every APS there are a few "smart" people who can solve all the problems.

Like one Director of Naval requirements who announced on arrival that they'd be cutting steel to replace the frigates while he was in the chair.

By the time he retired as CRCN, they hadn't started.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> The one-employer 30+ year career is apparently the view of a bygone (our) generation.



Never gave it much thought at the time. But, this thread got me thinking about it.

Looking back, 50 years later and straight out of high school, when we have our pensioner association luncheons ( the chief, or a deputy, and chaplain are always there to keep us up to date ), and other get-togethers, I think we go for the most selfish reason of all - to remind each other of when we were young. 

I believe people switching from employer to employer lose that connection. Maybe that's important. Maybe it's not. That's for them to decide.


----------



## lenaitch (14 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> Never gave it much thought at the time. But, this thread got me thinking about it.
> 
> Looking back, 50 years later and straight out of high school, when we have our pensioner association luncheons ( the chief, or a deputy, and chaplain are always there to keep us up to date ), and other get-togethers, I think we go for the most selfish reason of all - to remind each other of when we were young.
> 
> I believe people switching from employer to employer lose that connection. Maybe that's important. Maybe it's not. That's for them to decide.


It would interesting to see a breakdown of 'employment numbers' by economic sector.  It seems fairly well known anecdotally, that people in the service sector move around a fair but, even at the management level.  I suspect emergency service are somewhat more stable.  Folks might move between one PS, FS or EMS and another but I suspect it is largely a once-in-a-career event and mostly to move from a department that initially hired them to the one they really wanted in the first place.

On the other hand, a former colleague has a son who has been in the civil engineering sector for only a couple years now and is on his second employer and always seems to be eyeing up the field.  He recently got a promotion because his boss was walked out the door, but his parents reminded him that could be him in a couple of years.  The private sector values loyalty less, certain sectors, much less.


----------



## FSTO (14 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> The 100% offset is dumb, but yes, most nations do some form of it. There are a lot of multiplying factors, so it isn't a 1 for 1, but just building ships in Canada meets a huge portion of it just in payroll and supply chain alone.
> 
> The outside agencies (ie TBS, ISED etc) don't actually care what DND thinks though, let alone what CRCN does. Honestly also not his place to work with outside agencies on procurement issues; that's all within the VCDS shop really. We do keep a few sacrificial uniform people in the PSPC NSS office though just so folks in other departments are regularly reminded that there are actual sailors on the ships.
> 
> The core policies though aren't new, and most existed prior to the LPC, as did most approval gates.


I’d like to think that a young whippersnapper could cut their teeth on a deep dive into national procurement (mil and non-mil)  and see if we really get any value for the money spent. Like everything else just because we’ve always done it this way doesn’t mean we’re doing it the best or right way.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> I’d like to think that a young whippersnapper could cut their teeth on a deep dive into national procurement (mil and non-mil)  and see if we really get any value for the money spent. Like everything else just because we’ve always done it this way doesn’t mean we’re doing it the best or right way.


Good luck defining ‘value.’

Value to the Four Corners is a lot different than what DND would consider value. 

Guess who’ll win the coin toss every time?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

@Kirkhill @FJAG @TacticalTea  re: Reserve Navies

I'd like to point out that the USN Reserve, which is close to 60,000 in strength, is almost entirely (99%) composed of former Active Duty members who were fully trained technicians and professional mariners.  

If the US Military, who possess the Gold Standard when it comes to Reserves and what we would wish to aspire towards, don't have a Maritime "Militia", why do we seem to think it's a good idea?

The skills required to be an effective professional Mariner at sea, much less achieve any sort of acceptable collective readiness isn't something that can be learned in a few weeks during the summer.

A Frigate and an MCDV are apples and oranges.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Good luck defining ‘value.’
> 
> Value to the Four Corners is a lot different than what DND would consider value.
> 
> Guess who’ll win the coin toss every time?




Oh, I don't know G2G.  I'm sure somebody could come up with a reasonable definition of an appropriate norm.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> @Kirkhill @FJAG @TacticalTea  re: Reserve Navies
> 
> I'd like to point out that the USN Reserve, which is close to 60,000 in strength, is almost entirely (99%) composed of former Active Duty members who were fully trained technicians and professional mariners.
> 
> ...



For the record - I was not proposing a Maritime Militia.  I am coming to see the blue suiters - Navy, Air Force and their Grandad, the Ordnance - in a different light to the Army.  Equally I am becoming more convinced that The Militia and The Reserve are two separate bodies and should be organized as such.  The Militia may be a reserve force but it cannot be The Reserves.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> I’d like to think that a young whippersnapper could cut their teeth on a deep dive into national procurement (mil and non-mil)  and see if we really get any value for the money spent. Like everything else just because we’ve always done it this way doesn’t mean we’re doing it the best or right way.


The problem is 'value for money' doesn't actually have a standard meaning, and no country reports their budgets the same. The Auditor General tried a few times and basically gave up. Maybe if you had full budget info from multiple countries, plus full contract details, plus a detailed understanding of the context of the industry in each country you could do something, but there are reams of studies which are effectively educated guesses.


If it was entirely up to DND, it would be the best capability, with a working sustainment plan, that we could get money for, regardless of cost.
If it was up to Dept of FIN, it would be the bare minimum to get the job done, with production done where ever was cheapest (and screw your concerns about wartime production or security; give money to car makers).
ISED (as a department) doesn't really care what we get, as long as KICs are supported (Key Industrial Capabilities).
ITBS wants to fix our budget years out before we even define capabilities, add on large 'oversight' requirements that add on delays, then say we don't know what we're doing when things are delayed
PSPC wants 'fair, transparent and open' procurements, but doesn't care about the actual timelines, delays or impact on costs
INAC is supposed to care, but can't be arsed to participate in any stakeholder meetings
Fortunately in all that mess there are a lot of really dedicated PS in the various departments that actually get why it's critical, genuinely want to deliver ships that do the job we need them to, and try to keep things moving through the system, but at a GoC level any procurement over $40M is basically a ball of competing priorities, and gets further amplified over $100M with additional policy requirements. There are some pretty senior people from some of the other core departments working on it full time that get it, but they do get torn between their departmental priorities and the projects

But it's also a pretty uphill fight from the start when the companies can bypass all the project staff, DGs, ADMs etc and complain directly to the MPs, who instead of telling them to smarten up, turn around and dump on the collective staff.

Honestly unless you get PM that takes the reins, smashes the departments together under a single head, and stands up to the various presidents and CEOs to tell them to stop backdooring things or causing PR churn if they want Government business, don't see anything changing at the strategic level.

Do we pay more than other countries? Maybe? It's hard to say. But if you are buying widgets, they will cost what they cost regardless of where the ship is built, so that should be relatively fixed. There is a known learning curve for starting basically a new industry, so the slow pace at first is a feature, not a bug. But if you are going to pay thousands of people a day to do work, pretty hard to argue with the basic economics of 40ish percent of their wage going right back into government coffers via taxes, and the rest being spent in Canada.

There are always areas to do things better, but if anyone thinks the GoC wouldn't just collectively f&ck up any 'efficiencies' with building something overseas via insane contract requirements, ship performance specs and design changes, while giving a pitifully understaffed project not enough resources to do some kind of international build, I don't really know what to say.

Really nothing stopping us from changing the basic contract framework in Canada to commercial standard terms as a starting point if we want to find 'efficiencies' but build in Canada, but that's a Cabinet level decision that they will likely never back down from, as there as a lot of sacred cow programs built into that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> For the record - I was not proposing a Maritime Militia.  I am coming to see the blue suiters - Navy, Air Force and their Grandad, the Ordnance - in a different light to the Army.  Equally I am becoming more convinced that The Militia and The Reserve are two separate bodies and should be organized as such.  The Militia may be a reserve force but it cannot be The Reserves.


Agreed.  I'll add that it's one thing to train a rifleman (It's not that hard and doesn't take very long) but it's an entirely different beast to train skilled professional mariners and competent apprentices in both the Naval and Air Domains.

The consequences of failure in the respective domains are different and more serious at Sea and in the Air.  The potential cost of a mistake at sea, is measured in potentially significant loss of life and material/financial costs measured in the $100s millions to $billions of dollars:

See USS Fitzgerald Collision:









						USS Fitzgerald - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




Which at its core, was a result of lack of adequate training and poor seamanship.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Fortunately in all that mess there are a lot of really dedicated PS in the various departments that actually get why it's critical, genuinely want to deliver ships that do the job we need them to, and try to keep things moving through the system, but at a GoC level any procurement over $40M is basically a ball of competing priorities, and gets further amplified over $100M with additional policy requirements. There are some pretty senior people from some of the other core departments working on it full time that get it, but they do get torn between their departmental priorities and the projects


This is absolutely true!  

The problem is that it’s also hit and miss, not through deliberate stewardship of senior PS.

I was part of an effort where the stars aligned, in great part to an Exec Director at TBS who was sharp as a whip, ‘got it’ and she took to heart what the capability would mean to those who had to operate it (and of course, successive Governments that would lean hard on the capability).


----------



## dapaterson (14 Oct 2022)

Clear articulation of the project outcomes, beyond just "Dunno, the general wants it", makes interactions with central agencies significantly easier.

You can even take an ED at TBS from "shut down the project immediately" to "other departments must copy what you're doing" through clarifying the narrative - and appointing project leadership that is engaged, and not too busy to lead the project because they need second language training to prepare them for their release in a year or so.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Clear articulation of the project outcomes, beyond just "Dunno, the general wants it", makes interactions with central agencies significantly easier.


People like that in project leadership positions is most definitely a CAF own goal…


----------



## dapaterson (14 Oct 2022)

Most definitely a consistent CAF own goal.


----------



## FJAG (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> @Kirkhill @FJAG @TacticalTea  re: Reserve Navies
> 
> I'd like to point out that the USN Reserve, which is close to 60,000 in strength, is almost entirely (99%) composed of former Active Duty members who were fully trained technicians and professional mariners.
> 
> ...


I actually have no specific opinion about the naval reserve but am interested in it from the point of view of a book I have written and am rewriting.

My experience with them is limited to knowing a few of the senior officers from my time on Chief of Reserves Council and when giving legal advice to the ill-fated Reserve Force Employment Project. It was during the RFEP, whose aim was to modify the model of how reserves are employed, that I got an understanding of what the RCN wanted their reservists to do with the MCDV (which were still relatively new then). I thought that they were out to lunch. Their underlying plan was to have reservists operate a number of the ships year round. To me that's a fundamental misuse of reservists. If you want a capability operated year round then its a RegF position for me.

I've known that the USN has a reserve but no National Guard equivalent but have no idea as to the extent that they make use of their reservists except in emergency situations. I know that there are reserve ship capabilities but, again, not sure how much those get reactivated or crewed.

As you've probably surmised by now, I'm firmly in the camp of those that distinguish between day-to-day peacetime military capability (which I see primarily as an economy of effort task to set the conditions for a capable, expanded force for the defence of the nation's sovereignty in an emergency) and the part-time capability used to generate a larger, stand-by force to react in emergencies. That takes a plan which I think is sadly lacking in the CAF right now because we are operating above an economy of effort level and have a very limited surge capability to speak of.

What interests me in particular how both the US Army and Air Force are able to have a functioning, equipped National Guard system while we do not even see the necessity for such a system and instead follow an anaemic augmentation concept. 

As far as the Navy is concerned, I certainly appreciate the complexity of operating a combat vessel but even there I suspect that there are roles that can be filled by properly trained part-timers to bulk out the ranks as long as the ships are manned on a hybrid basis. Effectively most complex military systems are merely an aggregate of individually manageable tasks performed by a team. We already send ships to sea with newly trained RegF sailors. A newly trained ResF sailor is no different as long as he is given the same courses as his RegF counterpart. It's simply a matter of determining which trades can be trained within the summer school break system and then turning on a training system to do that and setting up a system to maintain an adequate level of currency. 

IMHO the biggest hurdle is that the CAF has failed to invest the resources needed for an adequate recruiting and training system for the RegF much less the ResF. The result is that we have undermanned ships and units while there is a supply of reservists sitting around armouries and stone frigates incapable of being rapidly mobilized should the need arise. It is not a scenario that the public or GoC should continue to accept.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson (14 Oct 2022)

The CAF should be an organization that produces and provides readiness.  Readiness requires personnel, materiel and equipment.  Generating readiness means a strong investment in systems that produce personnel, and produce / maintain / sustain materiel and equipment.

Or you maintain facades of units that are paid full time but are not operationally ready and take months to prepare.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Clear articulation of the project outcomes, beyond just "Dunno, the general wants it", makes interactions with central agencies significantly easier.
> 
> You can even take an ED at TBS from "shut down the project immediately" to "other departments must copy what you're doing" through clarifying the narrative - and appointing project leadership that is engaged, and not too busy to lead the project because they need second language training to prepare them for their release in a year or so.


Part of the challenge on some projects is the TBS submission goes from the DND project manager, to PSPC then into TBS.

I've had some fairly bad procurement managers make major changes (without providing us the changes before submission) to the TBS submission that were inaccurate, didn't make sense, or were flat out lies, and then gotten a blast when it came back for re-submission.

IMHO, there are a few too many layers of bureaucracy for the TBS submission, but for core elements like project outcomes, makes zero sense that the procurement authority is touching that at all or is the POC for any questions.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> On the other hand, a former colleague has a son who has been in the civil engineering sector for only a couple years now and is on his second employer and always seems to be eyeing up the field.  He recently got a promotion because his boss was walked out the door, but his parents reminded him that could be him in a couple of years.  The private sector values loyalty less, certain sectors, much less.



Sounds like he is in a better position than some.

I'd give the shirt right offa my back
If I had the guts to say

Take this job and shove it
I ain't working here no more
My woman done left
And took all the reasons
I was working for


----------



## Czech_pivo (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The CAF should be an organization that produces and provides readiness.  Readiness requires personnel, materiel and equipment.  Generating readiness means a strong investment in systems that produce personnel, and produce / maintain / sustain materiel and equipment.
> 
> *Or you maintain facades of units that are paid full time but are not operationally ready and take months to prepare.*


Doesn't that sound more than a bit similar to what the Russians have so painfully discovered recently?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Oct 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Doesn't that sound more than a bit similar to what the Russians have so painfully discovered recently?


Until we send 3 VP on a daring airborne raid to liberate South Dakota we've got nothing to worry about.


----------



## FJAG (14 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> For the record - I was not proposing a Maritime Militia.  I am coming to see the blue suiters - Navy, Air Force and their Grandad, the Ordnance - in a different light to the Army.  Equally I am becoming more convinced that The Militia and The Reserve are two separate bodies and should be organized as such.  The Militia may be a reserve force but it cannot be The Reserves.


I've actually bought into the Home guard system to an extent. Moreover, I think the CAF already has the building blocks that you envision but using different terminology.

The 18th and 19th century Militia is gone. While there once was a time when you could get valuable military service out of every able bodied man with a musket, modern warfare has left that behind and the term "Militia" should die an honourable death.

In Canada the Reserve Force is broken into four sub-components which, if properly, established and used, would meet all of your needs:

The Primary Reserve is the premier component. It can exist in the form of individuals, units or formations which function on a stand-by basis in peacetime but can be activated to full-time service in a number of situations when circumstances demand. The value of the primary reserve is a direct function of the training, equipment, organization and leadership it receives.

The Supplementary Reserve is the secondary component and consists of individuals who have been trained in either the RegF or the ResF and while they have no day-to-day responsibilities for training, they can be activated by the GoC in an emergency to fill out the ranks. Their value is dependant on an efficient administrative system that records their skill levels and currency and current contact information amongst other things.

The Canadian Rangers are in the nature of a home guard which receives limited military training and equipment but is organized under a command structure and is capable of carrying out limited tasks assigned to it while having no obligation to undergo annual training. Note that there is nothing that limits the Rangers to the North and elements exist throughout Canada and could be easily expanded further, if so desired.

The Cadet Organization which is designed to prepare youth with limited military skills and to effectively indoctrinate them to participate in future military service.

Essentially the organization and structures for everything that you need is already in place. What's needed is to put proper flesh on the bones.

I think that rather then using archaic terminology it would be better if one discussed the ways to improve the overall defence structure by referring to changes needed by each "sub-component" of the "Reserve Force"

🍻


----------



## quadrapiper (14 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I've actually bought into the Home guard system to an extent. Moreover, I think the CAF already has the building blocks that you envision but using different terminology.
> 
> The 18th and 19th century Militia is gone. While there once was a time when you could get valuable military service out of every able bodied man with a musket, modern warfare has left that behind and the term "Militia" should die an honourable death.
> 
> ...


The Rangers, or something that looks much more like Rangers than a reserve would be a natural place for the classic "militia" roles and expectations to settle: _deal with local problems when the Crown needs lots of keen bodies._


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The CAF should be an organization that produces and provides readiness.  Readiness requires personnel, materiel and equipment.  Generating readiness means a strong investment in systems that produce personnel, and produce / maintain / sustain materiel and equipment.
> 
> Or you maintain facades of units that are paid full time but are not operationally ready and take months to prepare.


This!


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Until we send 3 VP on a daring airborne raid to liberate South Dakota we've got nothing to worry about.


Recover The Angle! 😄


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Part of the challenge on some projects is the TBS submission goes from the DND project manager, to PSPC then into TBS.


For a joint submission?

If for EA only, then why is DND forwarding a yellow docket to PSPC?  Once signed, it goes straight from DCSFA direct to TBS.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The Reg F has arguably been broken since post-FRP and has repeatedly failed to fix itself.
> 
> Time to clean house and bring in professional management, instead of continuing with the current management perhaps.



Isn’t that what happens during posting season when all the Career Manglers do their handovers?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Until we send 3 VP on a daring airborne raid to liberate South Dakota we've got nothing to worry about.



Can the South Dakota Air National Guard loan us some Hercs?  We’re likely not able to provide enough airlift for all our chaulks…


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I've actually bought into the Home guard system to an extent. Moreover, I think the CAF already has the building blocks that you envision but using different terminology.
> 
> The 18th and 19th century Militia is gone. While there once was a time when you could get valuable military service out of every able bodied man with a musket, modern warfare has left that behind and the term "Militia" should die an honourable death.
> 
> In Canada the Reserve Force is broken into four sub-components which, if properly, established and used, would meet all of your needs:





> Essentially the organization and structures for everything that you need is already in place. What's needed is to put proper flesh on the bones.
> 
> I think that rather then using archaic terminology it would be better if one discussed the ways to improve the overall defence structure by referring to changes needed by each "sub-component" of the "Reserve Force"
> 
> 🍻



I think I could work within that framework although I would suggest the following:



> The Cadet Organization which is designed to prepare youth with limited military skills and to effectively indoctrinate them to participate in future military service.



Leave the Cadets to their own devices and go lightly on the indoctrination bit.  The kids are there because they want to be there and want to enjoy the experience.




> The Canadian Rangers are in the nature of a home guard which receives limited military training and equipment but is organized under a command structure and is capable of carrying out limited tasks assigned to it while having no obligation to undergo annual training. Note that there is nothing that limits the Rangers to the North and elements exist throughout Canada and could be easily expanded further, if so desired.



I like the notion of expanding the Ranger concept but I also like the idea of the Rangers continuing their current distinct identity.  I would expand the concept to "The Primary Reserve".  But....



> The Primary Reserve is the premier component. It can exist in the form of individuals, units or formations which function on a stand-by basis in peacetime but can be activated to full-time service in a number of situations when circumstances demand. The value of the primary reserve is a direct function of the training, equipment, organization and leadership it receives.



I don't like the notion of that organization being the "Primary" reserve.  I would relegate the Primary Reserve to an Auxilliary Corps retained on the same terms as the Rangers but with focus on larger orgnanizations - Companies rather than Patrols.

I would swap the Primary Reserve label with the Supplementary Reserve.



FJAG said:


> The Supplementary Reserve is the secondary component and consists of individuals who have been trained in either the RegF or the ResF and while they have no day-to-day responsibilities for training, they can be activated by the GoC in an emergency to fill out the ranks. Their value is dependant on an efficient administrative system that records their skill levels and currency and current contact information amongst other things.



I would make the Supplementary Reserve both a condition of service and a more attractive destination.   A short term contract engages you for two or three years with the colours and five to seven years with the Reserve.   Make it a stipendiary reserve - with pay, benefits, gym memberships, access to educational benefits, a thousand rounds a year and access to government ranges.....etc that kind of thing.  The Reservist is expected to stay in contact, show up one weekend a year in uniform to requalify - and to be ready for call up.   Extra points if they assist with the Auxilliary.

And the Auxilliary is not a new idea

The Auxiliary Corps​


Signalman J. Bennett of the 1st Canadian Railway Telegraph Company installing wire on pole in station yards, Louvain, Belgium, 6 January 1945.
Photo by Barney J. Gloster. Department of National Defence / National Archives of Canada, PA-130257.

The mission of the Auxiliary Corps is to provide the Armed Forces with all the supplies and resources they need to do their job. Many soldiers, who already had the required skills when they enlisted, were directed towards these corps. For others, it may have been the opportunity to learn a new trade. Some auxiliary corps, such as the postal services, worked behind the lines and, normally, did not t come under fire, while others, signalmen for instance, were assigned to combat units and shared the life of regular troops. They all played a vital role and they all faced the dangers that an army can encounter when advancing in enemy territory.









						The Auxiliary Corps
					

The mission of the Auxiliary Corps is to provide the Armed Forces with all the supplies and resources they need to do their job. Many soldiers, who already had the required skills when they enliste…




					www.junobeach.org
				




I see no reason not to add transport and security elements to the Auxilliary Corps remit - or marine and air components.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Until we send 3 VP on a daring airborne raid to liberate South Dakota we've got nothing to worry about.



How dare you suggest anything but disbanding 'Airborne things'... you know it's too politically risky for the party in power


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2022)

*You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket  - Sez the French Ambassador*

I have a new hero....

Peut-etre?  

Naval (Sic)-gazing Canada has neglected its military, new French ambassador says​The problem, in part, is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, Michel Miraillet said

Author of the article:
Tom Blackwell
Publishing date:
Oct 14, 2022  •  38 minutes ago  •  4 minute read  •   16 Comments







Canadian peacekeepers in Haiti in 1997. "In military terms, this country is less present than it was 10 or 15 years ago," France's ambassador said of Canada. PHOTO BY DANIEL MOREL/AP, FILE
​Caught up in naval (sic)-gazing and living under the protective shield of the United States, Canada has allowed its military presence worldwide to wither over the last decade or so, France’s new ambassador to Ottawa suggested Friday.

In blunt comments that he said reflected his own personal opinions, Michel Miraillet argued Canada needs to boost its defence capabilities as threats increase from the likes of China, Russia and North Korea.

The problem, in part, is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, he said.

“It’s always difficult for a country that by its nature is highly protected, with a big guy below who is a big pain in the neck but at the end of the day, well, it works,” said Miraillet. “You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket…. If you want to remain in the first-class seat, you need to train and expand and to go somewhere.”

“This country in some ways may be too comfortable, too comfortable.”

The ambassador’s remarks were by no means the first time someone from outside this country has criticized Ottawa’s recent defence spending record. U.S. presidents have long urged Canada and other lagging members of NATO to meet the alliance’s recommended goal of allocating two per cent of GDP to the military.

But it’s unusual to hear a similar complaint from another of Canada’s allies, albeit one whose arms industry might profit from increased equipment buying from Ottawa.



RECOMMENDED FROM EDITORIAL​



Canada slips further away from NATO's 2% defence spending benchmark​



U.S. Ambassador says Canada didn't live up to its own hype on defence spending​
According to NATO figures, France is 11th among the group’s 29 nations, spending just under the two-per-cent target — 1.90 per cent of GDP. Canada is 24th, budgeting just 1.27 per cent of gross domestic product for defence.

Miraillet, a former director general for global affairs, acknowledged Canada’s recent contributions to international defence, including its involvement in Afghanistan, soldiers sent to Baltic countries and training of Ukrainian troops.

He also said that this country has a “fantastic” reputation in France as a sympathetic nation with similar values.

But the ambassador said he recalls a day when, for instance, Canada was a major contributor to United Nations peacekeeping, a contrast to today’s situation.

After reaching a high point in 1993, when over 3,300 Canadians were deployed on peacekeeping missions, the number dwindled to just 54 this year, figures compiled by Royal Military College Prof. Walter Dorn indicate.

“At the end of the day, I have the feeling that in military terms, this country is less present than it was 10 or 15 years ago,” said Miraillet. “Canada was far more present in the past in Africa than it is now…. There is a need to have more Canada on the ground, not only in Africa but also in Asia.”

He suggested as well that threats in this country’s backyard are growing, with China sending icebreakers into the Arctic, possibly heralding the arrival of Peoples Liberation Army submarines. Meanwhile, Russia has deployed more attack submarines than ever, said the ambassador.





> You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket




But he said Canada has a “huge problem” with its own submarine fleet, calling them “very old” ships. In fact, the second-hand vessels bought from the U.K. have been plagued with mechanical problems, triggering high-cost repairs. Miraillet also called into question the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the joint U.S.-Canada continental defence program.

“You are now confronted with a situation where NORAD looks like an old Volvo 240. I mean it’s strong, but you have to beef it up.”

Instead of looking beyond its borders at security threats and humanitarian needs worldwide, Canada seems consumed by internal political discussions, especially over “gender” issues, said Miraillet.

“Now I have this sentiment — this is very personal — but the country is really belly-button focused, more than ever.”

His remarks — delivered with self-deprecating humour — may not have been completely altruistic. France has a major arms industry and recently was stung by Australia’s decision to scrap a deal to buy 12 French-made diesel-electric submarines. They are to be replaced by eight nuclear subs it will buy from the U.S. instead. The Royal Canadian Navy has said it is looking at purchasing a new submarine fleet.

The ambassador cited an incident in the early 90s when the Canadian navy approached France about buying attack submarines from it, only for the U.S. to scuttle the discussions. But he suggested Canada needs a bigger military to respond to international security risks, regardless of where it buys its equipment.

“I’m not telling you that you need to buy French frigates — though that would be a sign of good taste,” he said with a smile. “But on the other hand, what I want to see is just to have enough capacities to be ready … just for deterrence.”


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> *You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket  - Sez the French Ambassador*
> 
> I have a new hero....
> 
> ...


----------



## WestIsle (14 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> According to NATO figures, France is 11th among the group’s 29 nations, spending just under the two-per-cent target — 1.90 per cent of GDP. Canada is 24th, budgeting just 1.27 per cent of gross domestic product for defence.



Lol if only they knew how much of that 1.27% was real...


----------



## markppcli (14 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> Likely because the RegF staffing is the biggest problem right now... You prioritize what needs fixing _now_, vs. what can wait a bit longer.
> 
> Regardless of esteemed forum member's opinions, the RegF is still the primary arm of the GoC, so it is the primary focus. Once the crisis is abated in the RegF, serious efforts at fixing the ResF are needed.
> 
> I may be one of the overpaid, useless, waste of rations RegF members, but I also recognize that Canada needs a strong, ResF with a useful raison d'être.


Perhaps not surprisingly the two members who defended Sam Hughes in a previous thread have similar views on us “bar room layabouts” to quote his opinion of the permanent force.


----------



## Furniture (15 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Perhaps not surprisingly the two members who defended Sam Hughes in a previous thread have similar views on us “bar room layabouts” to quote his opinion of the permanent force.


Just got home from the pub, I'm sure I have personally destroyed at least 4-25 ResF Battalions with my filthy RegF ways.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> Just got home from the pub, I'm sure I have personally destroyed at least 4-25 ResF Battalions with my filthy RegF ways.



If my time, so far with the Army Reserve, has taught me anything it's that its a completely broken organization.  

And it's it's more their fault than anything else.  The dirty secret is they like it this way.


----------



## KevinB (15 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> If my time, so far with the Army Reserve, has taught me anything it's that its a completely broken organization.
> 
> And it's it's more their fault than anything else.  The dirty secret is they like it this way.


I think ‘they’ is unfair as a whole.  More like like most WO and higher and most MAJ and higher.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (15 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I think ‘they’ is unfair as a whole.  More like like most WO and higher and most MAJ and higher.


I would tend to agree, however, I dealt with many confused Cpl/Ptes who were signed on to FTSE and were extremely confused to find themselves in Wainwright supporting CMTC rather than hanging out in the CQ at their local armoury.

It's a cultural thing bred at all rank levels.


----------



## FJAG (15 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I think ‘they’ is unfair as a whole.  More like like most WO and higher and most MAJ and higher.


I agree with that in general. 

I'm obviously going back a few years in my experience but I always found the young ORs and junior officers very enthusiastic about the field work and training in general. It's as they climbed the ranks and reached roughly major and WO that the mess and the annual ball and the band fund and the regimental museum started taking precedent. 

It's a culture that perpetuates itself which is why I'm one hundred percent behind a radical shakeup to hybrid units and changing the leadership at that level to RegF. My biggest fear with hybrid units is that if things aren't set up properly, those positions may become ones where the RegF dumps its marginal leaders. "Bar Room Layabouts" exist in all organizations and if allowed to proliferate or congregate can spoil the whole barrel. The real crime, however, is to allow a system to stay dysfunctional for decades on end without doing anything about it.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> The real crime, however, is to allow a system to stay dysfunctional for decades on end without doing anything about it.


That....

And local command by locally raised Captains has made a lot of sense for a long, long time.

If you wear a crown you should be a full time employee of His Majesty.


----------



## CBH99 (15 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> If my time, so far with the Army Reserve, has taught me anything it's that its a completely broken organization.
> 
> And it's it's more their fault than anything else.  The dirty secret is they like it this way.


I don’t disagree in the slightest.  

Why do you (or anybody) feel like the leadership in the Army Reserve likes it this way?


----------



## Kilted (15 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> The Cadet Organization which is designed to prepare youth with limited military skills and to effectively indoctrinate them to participate in future military service.


It would be very interesting to see what percentage of our recruits (not including CIC), actually have Cadet experience.

It would also be interesting to see what percentage of Cadets actually join the CAF (not including CIC).


----------



## rmc_wannabe (15 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I don’t disagree in the slightest.
> 
> Why do you (or anybody) feel like the leadership in the Army Reserve likes it this way?


Money and Prestige for little personal sacrifice.


----------



## childs56 (15 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I don’t disagree in the slightest.
> 
> Why do you (or anybody) feel like the leadership in the Army Reserve likes it this way?


It is empire building for many. Whats in it for me attitude. Rub shoulders with this guy and he can help me over there.


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2022)

Kilted said:


> It would be very interesting to see what percentage of our recruits (not including CIC), actually have Cadet experience.
> 
> It would also be interesting to see what percentage of Cadets actually join the CAF (not including CIC).


I'd also like to break down what percentage join as NCM or Officer.

I ask because the main draw for many Air Cadets is flying, so I'd guess many of them apply as a Pilot.  How many actually get that, or another trade, etc would be what I'd like to know.


----------



## FJAG (15 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I don’t disagree in the slightest.
> 
> Why do you (or anybody) feel like the leadership in the Army Reserve likes it this way?


That's a good question. I'm obviously not speaking on behalf of  @Halifax Tar but in my own experience there are certainly a number of reserve senior leaders at both the OR and officer level that are "comfortable" with the system as it is at their level. IMHO Reserves 2000 is a group that supports the structure while calling for more people , equipment, budget etc., and speaks for many senior reservists.

Prestige and networking does still matter in some circles although money not so much. Many could probably make more money if they used the time spent on reserve matters on their own business or other civilian jobs. (just as an example, the ResF LegOs daily rate of military pay is roughly the hourly rate they can bill as civilian lawyers.)

What's important , though, is that there are a large number of dedicated reserve force leaders who throw themselves into the job to make a contribution to both the country and the troops they lead.

🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I don’t disagree in the slightest.
> 
> Why do you (or anybody) feel like the leadership in the Army Reserve likes it this way?



It’s what they’ve known at this point.  It’s known and comfortable, even if it’s not firing on all cylinders.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I think ‘they’ is unfair as a whole.  More like like most WO and higher and most MAJ and higher.



No, it's an all ranks thing.



rmc_wannabe said:


> Money and Prestige for little personal sacrifice.


----------



## btrudy (15 Oct 2022)

The entire concept of the reserves is strange. What other organization in the country would decide that they want to hire a bunch of part time and temp full time workers... and put them all together to run themselves, mostly separate from the main body of the organization? 

There's nothing wrong with the concept of having _reservists_, but the fact that they're mostly off doing their own thing is just bound to lead to dysfunctionality.


----------



## markppcli (15 Oct 2022)

btrudy said:


> The entire concept of the reserves is strange. What other organization in the country would decide that they want to hire a bunch of part time and temp full time workers... and put them all together to run themselves, mostly separate from the main body of the organization?.


Volunteer fire fighters jump to mind


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Volunteer fire fighters jump to mind



So what is the difference between the Volunteer Fire Fighter and the Primary Reservist?

At risk of starting another bruising - 

The Volunteer Fire Fighter has a day to day responsibility in support of his or her community.   They understand the need for their services and their community welcomes and support that service.  

The Reservist - toils (perhaps too strong a word) in obscurity.  The community seldom even knows they are there.  And the Reservist, more often than not, is focused on doing things that appeal to the Reservist but has little application to the community.  For some it is a shortcut to the rifle range - bypassing the aggravation of a full time career.

The Volunteer Fire Fighter is focused on a real life task.  And the community helps to maintain that focus.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Money and Prestige for little personal sacrifice.



Most of them, like me, were there 'cause we liked to train for war.

The 'prestige' crowd usually just passed through on their way to higher formations, often leaving a path of wreckage like a comet's tail in their wake


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Most of them, like me, were there 'cause we liked to train for war.



Serious question - poorly stated - How much of a "fix" would be necessary to maintain that interest?  

And I am going to suggest that the training should not be organized by the people training.   The trainees should be catered to.  Exactly in the same manner that Reg Troops on exercise should be catered to.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Serious question - poorly stated - How much of a "fix" would be necessary to maintain that interest?
> 
> And I am going to suggest that the training should not be organized by the people training.   The trainees should be catered to.  Exactly in the same manner that Reg Troops on exercise should be catered to.



Dude... the problem is not getting people interested and maintaining that interest. 18/19 year old kids love soldiering and are really good at it. 

All you need to do is the usual things to keep anyone motivated like plan good training, build up to more advanced challenges gradually, make sure they get their career courses on time, and don't f*ck them around. 'Train to excite' is not the way to go. Train to achieve high levels of battlefield competence is much more effective. If your unit has a good reputation, you'll attract people like flies to honey.

But when you have idiots in charge that don't understand this, stupid/ bad/ boring training etc. results, morale collapses, and they drift away to other things. Bad leaders have a much bigger impact on ARes than Reg F units because the ARes have so much more choice.


----------



## markppcli (15 Oct 2022)

The problem with keeping people interested is that the army is built to validate a given level. That level is a very low base line and we constantly repeat that level as opposed to moving forward. Sure 18-24 year old soldiers love soldiering, but no one loves constantly have to go back to step 0 every year as opposed to trying to bring new members up to the level of the unit.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (15 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> The problem with keeping people interested is that the army is built to validate a given level. That level is a very low base line and we constantly repeat that level as opposed to moving forward. Sure 18-24 year old soldiers love soldiering, but no one loves constantly have to go back to step 0 every year as opposed to trying to bring new members up to the level of the unit.


This is true to form for Reg F units as well. We used to call it "Ex Maple Groundhog Day" for a reason. We'd do the R2HR with one set of Bde Staff, spend 2 months on Ex, get the Bde and Staff confirmed End May,  have ⅓ of the Staff posted at APS, and we'd be breaking in a new Bde Staff on CAX in September. 

Doing that for 6 years as a Cpl/MCpl Siggie is enough to make you want to take the 8th Floor VR option.


----------



## markppcli (15 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This is true to form for Reg F units as well. We used to call it "Ex Maple Groundhog Day" for a reason. We'd do the R2HR with one set of Bde Staff, spend 2 months on Ex, get the Bde and Staff confirmed End May,  have ⅓ of the Staff posted at APS, and we'd be breaking in a new Bde Staff on CAX in September.
> 
> Doing that for 6 years as a Cpl/MCpl Siggie is enough to make you want to take the 8th Floor VR option.


Oh trust me I’m way to familiar with regurgitating combat team attacks through the PDA, only to have the Bn reorg post APS so we start from scratch on TMST because none of the next leadership have “seen the troops in the field.” Then deployment, re org again and we start from scratch yet again. The fact we don’t align our readiness cycle with APS is baffling to me.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Oh trust me I’m way to familiar with regurgitating combat team attacks through the PDA, only to have the Bn reorg post APS so we start from scratch on TMST because none of the next leadership have “seen the troops in the field.” Then deployment, re org again and we start from scratch yet again. The fact we don’t align our readiness cycle with APS *- or a looming WW3 -* is baffling to me.



There, FTFY.

Right then, head back in the sand


----------



## FJAG (16 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> The fact we don’t align our readiness cycle with APS is baffling to me.


We used to. All my unit training during the 70s and 80s was based on annual training cycles that commenced immediately after Labour day notwithstanding the fiscal year. Admittedly budgets were not a big issue then but you did have to sometimes prepare to adjust a bit if the new year's ammo allotment, which came out just before the big spring exercises, wasn't quite what was anticipated.

Mind you we weren't pulled from pillar to post by deployment requirements. Our biggest interference was career courses for key officers and senior NCOs that took them away from the unit and left holes to fill.

🍻


----------



## CBH99 (16 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Oh trust me I’m way to familiar with regurgitating combat team attacks through the PDA, only to have the Bn reorg post APS so we start from scratch on TMST because none of the next leadership have “seen the troops in the field.” Then deployment, re org again and we start from scratch yet again. The fact we don’t align our readiness cycle with APS is baffling to me.


Sorry, I’ve been out for just over a decade.  What is APS?


----------



## Weinie (16 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Sorry, I’ve been out for just over a decade.  What is APS?


Annual Posting Season


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Oct 2022)

Fully agreed.


----------



## eliminator (16 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Annual Posting Season


Active Posting Season...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Oct 2022)

Regarding Collective Training (CT), we do use APS as the "New Year's Day." The Managed Readiness Plan (MRP) cycles from 1 Jul to 30 Jun, with bleed-over as required. It is known that there will be turnover each APS.

Units should conduct Foundation Training (FT) regardless of their phase of the MRP. For the Reg F, This means that units should train to Level 4 (sub-unit) each year. Units in the Build Year conduct Level 5 (Combat Team/Combined Arms Team) and above with Validation occurring. This training is covered by the Enhanced Warfighting Proficiency directive that units in the Build Year will follow. 

The FT order states that "_there is no need for a wholesale restart in the training progression cycle_", but a commander may deem that their unit needs to go back and cover a given Level/Battle Task Standard (BTS) given their assessment of the situation. If a unit comes out of the Build Year more or less intact, then it should be able to continue to conduct build on what was learned rather than restart. If there was lots of churn then there will likely need to be restart in some areas. 

Asking the serving/recently serving members, what Collective Training would you adjust while remaining relatively resource neutral?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> So what is the difference between the Volunteer Fire Fighter and the Primary Reservist?
> 
> At risk of starting another bruising -
> 
> ...


Which is why Reserves work better in Europe where threats are a tad more real.


----------



## KevinB (16 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Which is why Reserves work better in Europe where threats are a tad more real.


Also a lot of those Reserves are sourced from those releases from national service periods.  
  A common standard of training and expectations.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Oct 2022)

The CAF has had Reg F shortages mitigated by employment of Res F mid-rank personnel at rates well north of 40% for a decade or more; it is just now that the true decrepit nature of the attraction, selection, recruiting and ab-initio training system for the Reg F is coming to light.  The issues are not novel or complex; there have just always been convenient methods for Reg F leadership to ignore the depth of the problem and resort to inaction and/or hope as the only COA until now when the problems can no longer be papered over.

Professionalization of the HR function is needed, as is professionalization of the force development and structural management functions.  Today's Reg F structure is impossible to fill, due to decisions / inertia. Rather than a VCDS doing their job (which sometimes requires telling whiny GOFOs up to and including the CDS "No"), successive occupants of that chair have punted that problem to the future, or decided that "We'll just ask for more Reg F PYs to mismanage" is a viable COA, rather than displaying leadership and making hard decisions.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Which is why Reserves work better in Europe where threats are a tad more real.



Threats there are real - and they are perceived as such.  It makes sense to want the government to supply a C6 and a half dozen N-LAWs for the top of your street and teach you how to use them.

In Canada there is no such imperative.  There is no perceived threat.  And perception is reality.


On the other hand Canadians do perceive other threats:  fire, flood, plague, pestilence, snow, ice, wind, hail, earthquakes, volcanoes.

Both sets of threats require society to organize.

What I heard Gen Eyre pitching to parliament that the Value Added Proposition of the CAF was its ability to Organize.  Well do that.  Organize.  But organize the Reserves around logistics and local security.  

Leave the Kabinett Wars to the professionals hired to assist Global Affairs Canada.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> That I could get behind, there’s probably an easy way to track that.



That would take effort that DGMC does have the people or inclination to do anymore. I remember early in my career my unit  had a rash of releases right around the same time (IIRC it was 3 or 4) in my trade and the CM made a visit to my unit to figure out what the hell was going on. He talked to all of us and all the leadership in an attempt that solve the problem. Fast forward 15 years and every CM is getting yelled at by corporals and MCpls telling them they are quitting because of the culture at the unit. Absolutely nothing changed. We never heard from a CM until next year when they were different people. Maybe some emails were sent or a phone call or two made but as far as we were concerned nothing happened. 

In the first example, I couldn't tell you what changes were made but I can tell you that someone actually cared enough to address it. In the second, we got answers like "that's not really my area" and "have your tried talking to your CoC?" 

I won't even get started at SOAs. I haven't heard from an SOA in almost a decade. I know they don't care about the feelings of the people in the trade because they would have to talk to some of them to actually have any idea what those feelings are.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The CAF has had Reg F shortages mitigated by employment of Res F mid-rank personnel at rates well north of 40% for a decade or more; it is just now that the true decrepit nature of the attraction, selection, recruiting and ab-initio training system for the Reg F is coming to light.  The issues are not novel or complex; there have just always been convenient methods for Reg F leadership to ignore the depth of the problem and resort to inaction and/or hope as the only COA until now when the problems can no longer be papered over.
> 
> Professionalization of the HR function is needed, as is professionalization of the force development and structural management functions.  Today's Reg F structure is impossible to fill, due to decisions / inertia. Rather than a VCDS doing their job (which sometimes requires telling whiny GOFOs up to and including the CDS "No"), successive occupants of that chair have punted that problem to the future, or decided that "We'll just ask for more Reg F PYs to mismanage" is a viable COA, rather than displaying leadership and making hard decisions.



On the first point, the reason the ResF got a pay raise was because they held so many RegF positions. My old man was complaining about the Military using the ResF as a discount military rather than a surge force more than 2 decades ago. 

As for the second point, I think I might disagree to a point. I think part of the problem we are having is bring too many civilian processes into the military. A military has to be bloated to a certain extent because if we work at full capacity during slow periods we have no one we can send to war without decimating (or thirdimating in reality) a unit's ability to Force Generate or perform regular maintenance.  A military can not, and should not, be run like a corporation. 

On the other hand, I'm taking a HR course right now and, much  like my organizational behaviour course, the military is going backwards on the things that industry is realizing is important. My topic for the week is creating a culture of life long learning and why it is important for organizations to focus on training their employees. In both those areas, the CAF was better 20+ years ago while industry has realized the importance of supporting employees as they gain new skills or knowledge. Interestingly, I was just telling my wife that this may be my last course because the new program is so much harder to get funding with.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Oct 2022)

The CAF leadership do not understand CAF HR.  They do not understand that MWOs and Majs don't magically appear.  Nor do they understand that if the GoC tells you you have 71,500 all in for Reg F PYs that you must fit all your Reg F needs within that PY limit.  They do not understand federal legislation.  They can't tell the difference between legislation, regulation and policy, nor who holds what authorities.  They don't understand compensation and benefits, either as strategic leaders or as tactical transactional managers.

A CAF GOFO in CMP needs to understand the AMOR to SIP to attract to select to recruit to train to develop to PME to retain to release process, end to end.

A CAF GOFO in the Army needs to understand the pers management they are accountable for, and needs to get fired when (for example) a release file sits for a year because a CBG is too fucking lazy to do their job.

The CAF needs professionals for management, and needs some public executions for those who fail to perform.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Oct 2022)

TCM621 said:


> Interestingly, I was just telling my wife that this may be my last course because the new program is so much harder to get funding with.



Huh...


----------



## FJAG (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The CAF leadership do not understand CAF HR.  They do not understand that MWOs and Majs don't magically appear.


Sure they do. You just promote the next highest merited WO or Captain. Shazam! Position filled! 

Perhaps the problem has as much to do with the overly lengthy development processes one needs to go through to be that promotable WO or Captain. I expect that someone will say I'm advocating lowering standards. What I'm suggesting, however, is that we need to be more selective in determining how far beyond "must knows" for each DP we go into the "should knows" and "could knows".



dapaterson said:


> Nor do they understand that if the GoC tells you you have 71,500 all in for Reg F PYs that you must fit all your Reg F needs within that PY limit.  They do not understand federal legislation.  They can't tell the difference between legislation, regulation and policy, nor who holds what authorities.  They don't understand compensation and benefits, either as strategic leaders or as tactical transactional managers.


That statement I agree with as a generalization. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are so many regulations and policies that with the best intentions no one is capable of informing themselves or staying current.



dapaterson said:


> A CAF GOFO in CMP needs to understand the AMOR to SIP to attract to select to recruit to train to develop to PME to retain to release process, end to end.


No argument



dapaterson said:


> A CAF GOFO in the Army needs to understand the pers management they are accountable for, and needs to get fired when (for example) a release file sits for a year because a CBG is too fucking lazy to do their job.
> 
> The CAF needs professionals for management, and needs some public executions for those who fail to perform.


Corporate CEOs don't. They have an HR department for that. The Army has the G1 and Adjutant position for that. Perhaps we should reintroduce the Personnel Administration Officer as a separate classification as it used to be and assign them to all unit adjutant and formation G1 positions.

🤷‍♂️


----------



## markppcli (17 Oct 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> Regarding Collective Training (CT), we do use APS as the "New Year's Day." The Managed Readiness Plan (MRP) cycles from 1 Jul to 30 Jun, with bleed-over as required. It is known that there will be turnover each APS.
> 
> Units should conduct Foundation Training (FT) regardless of their phase of the MRP. For the Reg F, This means that units should train to Level 4 (sub-unit) each year. Units in the Build Year conduct Level 5 (Combat Team/Combined Arms Team) and above with Validation occurring. This training is covered by the Enhanced Warfighting Proficiency directive that units in the Build Year will follow.
> 
> ...


Maybe I’m being too simplistic here, but if that’s the case why is the validation / Bde live exercise ( Maple Resolve and it’s precursor) conducted in March?


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Maybe I’m being too simplistic here, but if that’s the case why is the validation / Bde live exercise ( Maple Resolve and it’s precursor) conducted in March?



Because it's the end of the FY and they need to spend any left over cash before 31 March?


----------



## FJAG (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Because it's the end of the FY and they need to spend any left over cash before 31 March?


I hope that isn't the real reason. 

Our culminating exercises were always late May to June. Hell, the divisional exercise RV 81 was in June and got everyone home in time for APS and leave. We always straddled fiscal years.

🍻


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Maybe I’m being too simplistic here, but if that’s the case why is the validation / Bde live exercise ( Maple Resolve and it’s precursor) conducted in March?


MAPLE RESOLVE, the Level 6 (Battle Group) validation exercise for the Build Year occurs in May. It fits well as the capstone for the training year. 

A typical Build Year might look like this:

Jul to Aug: APS movement including folks moving internally due to promotions etc. Units might run courses (dvr, gnr, etc) and IBTS
Sep to Nov: Units conduct IBTS and Level 2 to 5 dry and potentially live. There will also be a UR Phase 2 in there
Jan to Feb: Bde HQ and Level 6s conduct UR Phase 2; units conduct Cold Weather Training/conducts Level 6 Validation at JRTC
Mar: Good time for gun camps in the bases with restrictive fire indexes//equipment will be moving to MR
Apr: Some folks are moving to Wx for MR//Opportunity to conduct Level 5 Live
May: Ex MAPLE RESOLVE (Level 6 Validation for the Mech guys)
Jun: Putting everything away from Ex MR
Jul: CMBG enters Contingency Phase of the MRP. Requirement for retraining would be driven by the amount of turnover. Otherwise the units could focus on retaining proficiency and further developing within means. 

It is a progressive plan based around the posting cycle, not the Fiscal Year.


----------



## KevinB (17 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I hope that isn't the real reason.
> 
> Our culminating exercises were always late May to June. Hell, the divisional exercise RV 81 was in June and got everyone home in time for APS and leave. We always straddled fiscal years.
> 
> 🍻


RV 92 was June/July (or May/June - it’s been a while)  albeit the guns left after the live fire in Suffield and those of us in the Div Arty CP had to stick around for the rest of the ex (or the real ex if you listened to everyone else). 

Some units probably shouldn’t have any significant movement at APS if you want to keep them in High Readiness.


----------



## ballz (17 Oct 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> The FT order states that "_there is no need for a wholesale restart in the training progression cycle_", but a commander may deem that their unit needs to go back and cover a given Level/Battle Task Standard (BTS) given their assessment of the situation. If a unit comes out of the Build Year more or less intact, then it should be able to continue to conduct build on what was learned rather than restart. If there was lots of churn then there will likely need to be restart in some areas.



This is great but like most things out of CADTC completely ignores reality. A unit never comes out of the Build Year more or less intact, in particular the leadership positions. So in practice you've got to start everything right back at square one.

The new MRP also did not make it a requirement to go to Level 4 live in the HOLD year, just Level 3, but the Division didn't read it and just copied and pasted the previous orders they had written from the old MRP.



TangoTwoBravo said:


> Asking the serving/recently serving members, what Collective Training would you adjust while remaining relatively resource neutral?



The easiest thing that pops to mind (that I had argued as a first-year Captain) would be to stop making everyone hit every IBTS every year. You can train everything really poorly 3 times in three years, or train 1/3rd of things fairly well once every three years. The example I'll give are OPs... IBTS for OPs has been reduced to tasking someone to go send up a shitty little OP in the trees across the street to have all the units sections cycle through a 45 minute brief, just to get the tick in the box. Most IBTS has been reduced this because there's too many. If they did manage to catch anything in the brief, they've forgotten about it by next week, particularly since they did not actually do anything hands on.

I managed to fit actual OP training into a 4-day Level 2 exercise when we were doing our dry/live fire for Sections. The first section occupied the OP for 24 hours, the second section RIP'd them and continued building it up, and then third did the same. We were able to give them tasks and provide pattern of life, and had a few of our skilled SNCOs (Recce, Sniper, Patrol Pathfinder guys) try and spot the OPs, and able to have the CSM go around and inspect their work, and actually provide feedback, points to sustain, points to improve, etc. They learned a lot more about OPs from this than they did in 10 years of doing shitty 45 minute lectures, and would not need to do this annually, once every three years would be fine and far more effective than the current modus operandi.

It was mostly luck I was able to do that with OPs, and there was certainly no way I could it with all of the IBTS in one year. Give me a third of the IBTS and I could do something similar for all of them (more emphasis and time put towards the important ones, of course...). Honestly we could have done a lot better training with _less _resources if not for all the box-checking dictated by CADTC. Sustainment (money, food, ammo, etc.) was never the limiting factor - _time _was_._



TangoTwoBravo said:


> It is a progressive plan based around the posting cycle, not the Fiscal Year.



Unfortunately the finance world could never figure that out and never aligned actually split the funding so that you received 4 months of R2HR money (1 April to 30 Jun) and then 8 months of HR money (1 Jul to 31 Mar). This also did not get addressed when the new MRP came around... actually some of the planning factors/tasks changed but the funding model didn't change at all so the problem got exacerbated. It always gets fixed in the end, just causes chaos all year for no reason other than poor planning and SALY'ing it.


----------



## markppcli (17 Oct 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> MAPLE RESOLVE, the Level 6 (Battle Group) validation exercise for the Build Year occurs in May. It fits well as the capstone for the training year.
> 
> A typical Build Year might look like this:
> 
> ...


The problem of course being that you do MR, APS hits, and now your off to do TMST with a completely different Bn leadership set before you deploy. The. Again I’ve yet to deploy under this new plan, so maybe it solves some issues. I have my doubts given that every sub unit I’ve seen is cobbled together for the tour so any previous training is kind of moot. Also further development simply won’t happen as APS hits, and the following September it’s back to square 1 again. Which I partially understand, it’s the nature of the beast when we have a mass posting season. Part of me wonders if we could mitigate by having postings spread across the year as opposed to one season but that leads to its own problems I imagine.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> The problem of course being that you do MR, APS hits, and now your off to do TMST with a completely different Bn leadership set before you deploy. The. Again I’ve yet to deploy under this new plan, so maybe it solves some issues. I have my doubts given that every sub unit I’ve seen is cobbled together for the tour so any previous training is kind of moot. Also further development simply won’t happen as APS hits, and the following September it’s back to square 1 again. Which I partially understand, it’s the nature of the beast when we have a mass posting season. Part of me wonders if we could mitigate by having postings spread across the year as opposed to one season but that leads to its own problems I imagine.


The level of APS churn following the Build year is indeed the major factor in the requirement to retrain BTS items/items. Some units might get through relatively unscathed in terms of key positions, while others might have major changes. School years are one of the drivers of APS.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> MAPLE RESOLVE, the Level 6 (Battle Group) validation exercise for the Build Year occurs in May. It fits well as the capstone for the training year.
> 
> A typical Build Year might look like this:
> 
> ...



Which is kind of exactly the opposite to the Reserve Army. Except possibly for Gun Camps in March.


----------



## Quirky (17 Oct 2022)

Here is a thought, I know it's a radical concept but hear me out.

Stop. Posting. People. 

Will that work or the thought of people doing their entire careers in two or three max places too hard?


----------



## FJAG (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Which is kind of exactly the opposite to the Reserve Army. Except possibly for Gun Camps in March.


Exactly right which is why you can never integrate PRes and RegF personnel within the sub unit level. They simply conduct their training at different times. All that you can and should do is create a RegF leadership/administrative cadre at the sub unit level. 

March was never the best time for a gun camp in Shilo on account of the snow, but I always planned an exercise for it to fire of MilArea Prairie's surplus ammo stocks before FY end. There is minimal training for the gun line when you have to deploy in plowed out gun positions but it certainly practiced the FOOs. Doubled our annual ammunition allotment through that.

It's probably the same for the armoured corps for static position range practices.

🍻


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> Here is a thought, I know it's a radical concept but hear me out.
> 
> Stop. Posting. People.
> 
> Will that work or the thought of people doing their entire careers in two or three max places too hard?


How dare you suggest we stop aimlessly wasting money sending people around the Country every 1-2 years to gain "institutional experience" filling mostly bureaucratic and useless make work positions.

Shame on you! 🤣


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2022)

Professionalization of CAF HR enters the discussion again.  Taking a skilled AVN and telling them "You're now a career manager" and delivering all necessary training only after they are in the job for their first year is not how professionals work.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Professionalization of CAF HR enters the discussion again.  Taking a skilled AVN and telling them "You're now a career manager" and delivering all necessary training only after they are in the job for their first year is not how professionals work.



And stay ahead of the HR capacity building curve before we skid off of the edge (and over the cliff) 

21 HR Jobs of the Future​

Summary. 

The Cognizant Center for Future of Work and Future Workplace jointly embarked on a nine-month initiative to determine exactly what the future of HR will look like. They brought together a network of nearly 100 CHROs, CLOs, and VP’s of talent and workforce transformation to envision how HR’s role might evolve over the next 10 years. The result was the conception of over 21 new HR jobs, including detailed responsibilities and skills needed to succeed in each role. While some of the roles are entirely new positions, others are new responsibilities that are becoming increasingly important. All 21 jobs embody five core themes: individual and organizational resilience; organizational trust and safety; creativity and innovation; data literacy; human-machine partnerships.close











						21 HR Jobs of the Future
					

The Cognizant Center for Future of Work and Future Workplace jointly embarked on a nine-month initiative to determine exactly what the future of HR will look like. They brought together a network of nearly 100 CHROs, CLOs, and VP’s of talent and workforce transformation to envision how HR’s role...




					hbr.org


----------



## TCM621 (17 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> Here is a thought, I know it's a radical concept but hear me out.
> 
> Stop. Posting. People.
> 
> Will that work or the thought of people doing their entire careers in two or three max places too hard?


That's awesome if you are posted somewhere you like. A bad 3 posting is easier to swallow than a bad 10 year posting. If you can't afford to live in Victoria, keeping you there will only mean the release is your only option. 

A better solution would be to ensure people can actually afford to live and actually take members wants into consideration. Nothing is more fun that seeing one person who wants a posting staying put and the one that asked for another year getting posted. I think if the needs of the service really required a certain number individual to go, most people would accept it, even if they don't like it. However, the CM shops seem like they are evaluated by how many people they piss off.


----------



## QV (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Professionalization of CAF HR enters the discussion again.  Taking a skilled AVN and telling them "You're now a career manager" and delivering all necessary training only after they are in the job for their first year is not how professionals work.


Sounds like a good position to be transitioned to the PS where an employee would likely make a career out of it ... and there are many like it.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2022)

TCM621 said:


> That's awesome if you are posted somewhere you like. A bad 3 posting is easier to swallow than a bad 10 year posting. If you can't afford to live in Victoria, keeping you there will only mean the release is your only option.
> 
> A better solution would be to ensure people can actually afford to live and actually take members wants into consideration. Nothing is more fun that seeing one person who wants a posting staying put and the one that asked for another year getting posted. I think if the needs of the service really required a certain number individual to go, most people would accept it, even if they don't like it. However, the CM shops seem like they are evaluated by how many people they piss off.



How many "hardship" postings are there really?  

I get sea duty for the Navy.   For the Air Force?  I keep hearing about Cold Lake and Bagotville.  

Army?


----------



## Furniture (17 Oct 2022)

TCM621 said:


> That's awesome if you are posted somewhere you like. A bad 3 posting is easier to swallow than a bad 10 year posting. If you can't afford to live in Victoria, keeping you there will only mean the release is your only option.
> 
> A better solution would be to ensure people can actually afford to live and actually take members wants into consideration. Nothing is more fun that seeing one person who wants a posting staying put and the one that asked for another year getting posted. I think if the needs of the service really required a certain number individual to go, most people would accept it, even if they don't like it. However, the CM shops seem like they are evaluated by how many people they piss off.


I don't blame CMs for the mess they have to deal with, they spend their time in a rush trying to plug holes and catch-up admin/data entry due to ridiculous processes.

One of the biggest flaws in the current CAF HR system is the lack of transparency in decision making, and the perception that member input is meaningless unless you're one of the "chosen" ones. Members should know how the CM chooses between people looking for a desirable posting, why one person was picked over another for a yearlong French course, etc... The current system of silence from the CM only makes the perception of favouritism seem even worse than it really is.


Kirkhill said:


> How many "hardship" postings are there really?
> 
> I get sea duty for the Navy.   For the Air Force?  I keep hearing about Cold Lake and Bagotville.
> 
> Army?



It's not so much about "hardship" postings, it's more about "I want to live in Halifax, why am I posted to Esquimalt? Especially since S1 Bloggins who wants Esquimalt is posted to Halifax..." 

There is obviously a hardship element to some postings, particularly more rural ones when viewed from the perspective of a city dweller. When my Ex came to Oromocto with me she was furious about living in a small town, having grown up in Edmonton.


----------



## Weinie (17 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> I don't blame CMs for the mess they have to deal with, they spend their time in a rush trying to plug holes and catch-up admin/data entry due to ridiculous processes.
> 
> One of the biggest flaws in the current CAF HR system is the lack of transparency in decision making, and the perception that member input is meaningless unless you're one of the "chosen" ones. Members should know how the CM chooses between people looking for a desirable posting, why one person was picked over another for a yearlong French course, etc... The current system of silence from the CM only makes the perception of favouritism seem even worse than it really is.
> 
> ...


Hence why your Ex. Most likely a good thing.


----------



## KevinB (17 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> How many "hardship" postings are there really?
> 
> I get sea duty for the Navy.   For the Air Force?  I keep hearing about Cold Lake and Bagotville.
> 
> Army?


Depending on family situation there can be a bunch.
@Furniture pointed out the issue with Gagetown, and Petawawa isn't exactly working spouse friendly either, as far as major bases go.
Wainwright is also a big No-Go for a lot of families with professional working spouses.


----------



## Quirky (17 Oct 2022)

TCM621 said:


> That's awesome if you are posted somewhere you like. A bad 3 posting is easier to swallow than a bad 10 year posting. If you can't afford to live in Victoria, keeping you there will only mean the release is your only option.



I was in a "bad posting" for 10 years and made the best of it, it's all you can do when you join the military.

The CAF is in a real shit storm right now. Historically desirable bases in nice geographical locations are unaffordable on the economy with no PMQ housing available (ie. Comox). Undesirable bases in remote areas are affordable but you're semi-isolated (i.e Cold lake). Comox used to be the golden posting in the early 2000s, now people release to avoid it.


----------



## KevinB (17 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> I was in a "bad posting" for 10 years and made the best of it, it's all you can do when you join the military.


 You can release...
If you are posted, and your wife cannot find a suitable job in the new location, what do you think will happen?



Quirky said:


> The CAF is in a real shit storm right now. Historically desirable bases in nice geographical locations are unaffordable on the economy with no PMQ housing available (ie. Comox). Undesirable bases in remote areas are affordable but you're semi-isolated (i.e Cold lake). Comox used to be the golden posting in the early 2000s, now people release to avoid it.


I never figured out why the CAF did what they did, and didn't fight the TB on the whole Housing issue.
  Extremely short sighted - and short of eminent domain'ing a lot of land in certain locations, I don't see a great solution.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> You can release...
> If you are posted, and your wife cannot find a suitable job in the new location, what do you think will happen?
> 
> 
> ...




Why are 68,000 people living in Fort McMurray?  Why did Quebecers and Newfoundlanders fly out there for weeks in camps?  Why do people take Jobs in Kapuskasing and Sioux Lookout?  

Most of us go where the work, and the dollar, takes us.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Why are 68,000 people living in Fort McMurray?  Why did Quebecers and Newfoundlanders fly out there for weeks in camps?  Why do people take Jobs in Kapuskasing and Sioux Lookout?
> 
> Most of us go where the work, and the dollar, takes us *or we starve.*



There, FTFY


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Why are 68,000 people living in Fort McMurray?  Why did Quebecers and Newfoundlanders fly out there for weeks in camps?  Why do people take Jobs in Kapuskasing and Sioux Lookout?
> 
> Most of us go where the work, and the dollar, takes us.


True, but they compensated them well for those jobs in remote locations.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> True, but they compensated them well for those jobs in remote locations.



So then let's get rid of 'remote locations' and bring everyone back from internal exile into the more urbanized parts of Canada. Guess what, it might also help with recruiting and retention.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> So then let's get rid of 'remote locations' and bring everyone back from internal exile into the more urbanized parts of Canada. Guess what, it might also help with recruiting and retention.


It absolutely would.  

The CAF would be far more in the public eye, rather than ushered off into the more rural parts of the country.  The public’s exposure to military matters would be far more developed, and the public would care more about the military’s missions when the people going are their next door neighbours.  

And if you are a city dweller, and you’re worried about getting posted elsewhere in a few years time?  Don’t worry, the move from Edmonton to Saskatoon isn’t a hard one.


Nobody joins the military to be invisible, not so dangerous or exciting jobs, and to be forced to create a life in the bustling metropolis of Shilo, MB.  Or Gander, Newfoundland.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> It absolutely would.
> 
> The CAF would be far more in the public eye, rather than ushered off into the more rural parts of the country.  The public’s exposure to military matters would be far more developed, and the public would care more about the military’s missions when the people going are their next door neighbours.
> 
> ...



Most service personnel in European military organizations are within a day's drive from home. A buddy of mine was posted to SHAPE, in Belgium, and could still get home to London on weekends quite easily.

Why we insist on condemning ours to eternal banishment, either inside or outside Canada, is quite beyond me.


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> So then let's get rid of 'remote locations' and bring everyone back from internal exile into the more urbanized parts of Canada. Guess what, it might also help with recruiting and retention.


I don’t disagree.

I’ve known plenty of reservists that would have CTed. But location for what they wanted to do was too much of a turn off.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Most service personnel in European military organizations are within a day's drive from home. A buddy of mine was posted to SHAPE, in Belgium, and could still get home to London on weekends quite easily.
> 
> Why we insist on condemning ours to eternal banishment, either inside or outside Canada, is quite beyond me.



Have you checked the population density of Europe recently?

And by the way I don't fancy your chances commuting from Manchester to Leeds by rail.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> Here is a thought, I know it's a radical concept but hear me out.
> 
> Stop. Posting. People.
> 
> Will that work or the thought of people doing their entire careers in two or three max places too hard?


And let folks get good at their jobs??   That'll never do.....


----------



## kev994 (17 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> - and short of eminent domain'ing a lot of land in certain locations, I don't see a great solution.


There’s quite a bit of vacant land in the Trenton PMQ patch but I don’t see any houses sprouting up, despite huge waiting lists, I don’t think land is the only problem.


----------



## Quirky (17 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And let folks get good at their jobs??   That'll never do.....



By the time you’re competent and really good at your job, you are either promoted or posted, or both. CAF is really bad at keeping the really skilled people fixing things because pay is tied to rank. There is no reason why a 20+ year AVN/AVS/ACS Cpl can’t make what first year WO does.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> How many "hardship" postings are there really?
> 
> I get sea duty for the Navy.   For the Air Force?  I keep hearing about Cold Lake and Bagotville.
> 
> Army?



Meaford is the shit hole Trump talked about.  

And Pet is ok until your kids are teenagers.  Then you gotta get them out of there. 



Kirkhill said:


> Most of us go where the work, and the dollar, takes us.



*Maritimers enter the chat


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Meaford is the shit hole Trump talked about.
> 
> And Pet is ok until your kids are teenagers.  Then you gotta get them out of there.


I love the Meaford area,......and I spent 8 great years in Pet.  Everyone's mileage will vary on what a "shit hole" is.


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I love the Meaford area,......and I spent 8 great years in Pet.  Everyone's mileage will vary on what a "shit hole" is.


Just about everyone I’ve known that has been posted to Meaford actually wanted to stay there.

Tasked to Meaford is a different thing…


----------



## CBH99 (17 Oct 2022)

So what’s so bad about a posting to Meaford, anyway? 
(I have never been to Meaford…)


----------



## Quirky (17 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> So what’s so bad about a posting to Meaford, anyway?
> (I have never been to Meaford…)


I hate Ontario as much as the next Westerner, but geographically that area is really nice. Meaford must suck along the same lines as Comox, Victoria, Ottawa, etc


----------



## Furniture (17 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> I hate Ontario as much as the next Westerner, but geographically that area is really nice. Meaford must suck along the same lines as Comox, Victoria, Ottawa, etc


Any posting can suck if it's not where you want to be, and the area has nothing that interests you. 

People who like the outdoors would likely enjoy a rural posting; people who love a city would likely dislike a rural posting. 

What the CAF needs to figure out is a way to get people to where they'd like to be or provide incentive to go where they don't want to be.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (17 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> Any posting can suck if it's not where you want to be, and the area has nothing that interests you.
> 
> People who like the outdoors would likely enjoy a rural posting; people who love a city would likely dislike a rural posting.
> 
> What the CAF needs to figure out is a way to get people to where they'd like to be or provide incentive to go where they don't want to be.


Seeing as 3 in 4 Canadians, almost 75 percent of our total population, resides within major urban areas; that should be indicator enough that the folks who enjoy rural pastimes are now fewer and farther between.

The Daily — Canada's large urban centres continue to grow and spread


The hearty farm lads of yore no longer exist as a recruiting pool. Trying to sell the hunting, fishing, and camping benefits of a posting to Petawawa/Shilo are not going to yield results on urbanites who think cottage life in Muskoka is roughing it.

Now if 2 CMBG somehow got a foothold in Durham or Peel Region.... you might see folks willing to take the King's shilling.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2022)

You mean like when there was a Reg F Bn of The RCR in London?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> You mean like when there was a Reg F Bn of The RCR in London?


And a Bn each of the PPCLI in Calgary and Winnipeg, yes I know the history.

We can blame Chretien and Collenette til we're blue in the face for that folly; but in 2022, if our recruiting base is urban, we cannot continue to exist on the fringe of civilization and expect those urbanites to jump at the chance to live 45 minutes away from the closest Starbucks.


----------



## RangerRay (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> You mean like when there was a Reg F Bn of The RCR in London?


Or when there was a RegF Bn of PPCLI in Winnipeg and Esquimalt…


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Oct 2022)

Bases move away from cities...

"We miss the cities!"

Bases move closer to cities...

"We can't afford to live here!"

Bases move away from cities...

...

So, Goldilocks, which bases, exactly, are just right?


----------



## FJAG (17 Oct 2022)

Or 3 RCHA in Winnipeg. And the LdSH and 1 Svc Bn in Calgary.

😥


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Oct 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Bases move away from cities...
> 
> "We miss the cities!"
> 
> ...


Baden.

Lahr.


----------



## TacticalTea (17 Oct 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Bases move away from cities...
> 
> "We miss the cities!"
> 
> ...


The city ones with base housing.

Note: base housing doesn't have to be SFH...


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Or 3 RCHA in Winnipeg. And the LdSH and 1 Svc Bn in Calgary.
> 
> 😥


I'll see you, and raise you 1 CER in Chilliwack.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Oct 2022)

I have it on the authority of the Base Duty Sgt (Base Duty Sgt for life after a minor misunderstanding between the base commander, the sgt, his personal vehicle, an order to use said vehicle by said base commander, and the base fuel pumps) that the jolly Miller is officially within the base limits, so even if the mess was off limits for our course, the Miller was not.


----------



## kev994 (18 Oct 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Bases move away from cities...
> 
> "We miss the cities!"
> 
> ...


The one with PLD to account for this COL discrepancy.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> And a Bn each of the PPCLI in Calgary and Winnipeg, yes I know the history.
> 
> We can blame Chretien and Collenette til we're blue in the face for that folly; but in 2022, if our recruiting base is urban, we cannot continue to exist on the fringe of civilization and expect those urbanites to jump at the chance to live 45 minutes away from the closest Starbucks.


People generally relocate to urban centers for employment, NOT necessarily because they love being in an urban center.  

But, back when the earth was cooling and the CAF created its bases, most families didn’t have a working spouse.  
  If your spouse is a doctor or lawyer, the opportunities for them are pretty bleak in Wainwright, Petawawa, Gagetown, Cold Lake etc.  

Spinning off Calgary and some of the other smaller bases was probably one of the worst decisions that the CAF did for QOL.   

Down here bases are generally Div sized, and larger, with most bases being collocated with at least two elements (now merged with the Joint Base system) and create their own economic ecosystem, where most families can find employment (gainful employment) for a professional spouse, even if the base location isn’t exactly a thriving metropolis.


----------



## btrudy (18 Oct 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Bases move away from cities...
> 
> "We miss the cities!"
> 
> ...



Posting people to cities and paying them enough when they're posted there that they can live there comfortably.

Stop doing things that are major dissatisfiers, and people won't be dissatisfied. Poor pay is a major dissatisfier. Making them live in shitty places is a major dissatisfier. People aren't being unreasonable if they happen to complain about either of those things. They're acting perfectly rationally if either of those things is what drives them to leave for better employers. 

The government is quite capable of making people miserable and driving them to leave their job for a multitude of reasons. Your question is the equivalent of saying "People don't like it when we burn them to death nor when we stab them. Which one is it?!"

Maybe, just maybe, we should stop hurting them, and focus on supporting our personnel instead.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

btrudy said:


> Posting people to cities and paying them enough when they're posted there that they can live there comfortably.
> 
> Stop doing things that are major dissatisfiers, and people won't be dissatisfied. Poor pay is a major dissatisfier. Making them live in shitty places is a major dissatisfier. People aren't being unreasonable if they happen to complain about either of those things. They're acting perfectly rationally if either of those things is what drives them to leave for better employers.
> 
> ...



While agree with your premise, I don't think you understood @Brad Sallows point.

I think he was pointing at a vicious cycle.  Or that either way you go you're going upset the apple cart.

But I agree, we should be based in areas that built up enough to provide work and opportunities for our families.  With large training areas away from these places for our people to train.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> While agree with your premise, I don't think you understood @Brad Sallows point.
> 
> I think he was pointing at a vicious cycle.
> 
> But I agree, we should be based in areas that built up enough to provide work and opportunities for our families.  With large training areas away from these places for our people to train.


Ideally large training areas nearby.  
   Less time and money for travel, and at least for the Army many activities can occur in ‘working hours’ as opposed to being away for multiple days.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Ideally large training areas nearby.
> Less time and money for travel, and at least for the Army many activities can occur in ‘working hours’ as opposed to being away for multiple days.



I would argue far away that Logistics can practice it's business of moving people and materials around though.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I would argue far away that Logistics can practice it's business of moving people and materials around though.



Short form: This is Canada.

Too much geography.  Too few people. Nothing is cheap. Especially running a nationwide business.

Corollary:

2% buys you 1% in Belgium.  To meet the intent of the 2% Euro target we should probably plan on spending 3%.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Short form: This is Canada.
> 
> Too much geography.  Too few people. Nothing is cheap. Especially running a nationwide business.
> 
> ...



Agreed. And if the last few months have shown us anything it's the preeminent effect of Logistics on warfare.

Hence why training your supply train and practicing defending it should be a focal point for any and all exercises.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I would argue far away that Logistics can practice it's business of moving people and materials around though.


Understandable. 
   I’d suggest that once a year a Bde ideally would travel to another Bde’s training area. 
  That way the entire Bde conducts a movement, and many aspects get exercised. 

Down here we have three options for combat training centers:
1) National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., 
2) Joint Multinational Readiness Center at U.S. Army Garrison Hohenfels, Germany, and
3) Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, La

However for day to day training, having ranges (small arms to combined arms live fire) on the same post makes field unit life much more attractive.   
   Even more so when it is close to a nearby urban center.  
    Rural life enjoying folks can usually find properties on one side of a base, while those who want urban life can find it within 30min or less of the main gate. 

One of the reasons I like Ft Bragg is while I dislike cities and would never live in Fayetteville, the back side has Southern Pines and some horse country so suburban to fully rural areas are inside 20min.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Understandable.
> I’d suggest that once a year a Bde ideally would travel to another Bde’s training area.
> That way the entire Bde conducts a movement, and many aspects get exercised.
> 
> ...



I think the support echelons need to be exercised more than once a year. But I don't think it always needs to be a massive CBG level event. 

Move the SVC BN to the training are.  Set up in the field as an FSG and practice defence of th position, FP of the supply train, Maint tasks like battlefield recovery and RRRs and actioning material and pers requests.


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> People generally relocate to urban centers for employment, NOT necessarily because they love being in an urban center.


One of the phenomenas of the pandemic are people WFH that opted to move out of the urban centers.  Real estate is normally cheaper and they live their lifestyles the way they want.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2022)

@Halifax Tar You can (and should) use your Bde Logistics and Support entities to support day routine in training areas as well.  
   With a base collocated with a trg area, you can always leave equipment in situ, with sentries and bus/B vehicle folks to and from.  

2 RCHA would often do this on ex’s, and we did it in 1VP as well in Calgary, both those units didn’t suffer from that and it was actually enjoyable to sleep in one’s own bed more often than not.


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Professionalization of CAF HR enters the discussion again.  Taking a skilled AVN and telling them "You're now a career manager" and delivering all necessary training only after they are in the job for their first year is not how professionals work.


Why stop at HR? That's how we do all CAF jobs. LCMM apprenticeship program is 3 years long. Average military posting to an LCMM billet is 2 years. Procurement is about a two year onboarding. The project manager certification can take a few years. It works okay as long as you have a mix of experienced civlian personnel that have a lot of experience with the various processes and can walk you through it.

Fortunately we plan ahead for personnel management and trained up replacements for all the folks hitting retirement age, with overlap to allow knowledge transfer and... well crap.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Understandable.
> I’d suggest that once a year a Bde ideally would travel to another Bde’s training area.
> That way the entire Bde conducts a movement, and many aspects get exercised.
> 
> ...




Supporting small combined arms teams dispersed across the country mirrors the battlefield observed in Ukraine.  Also a combined arms team (sub unit size) requires less space than a Brigade Group.

An argument for permanent combined arms groupings at the sub-unit level.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Oct 2022)

Hey, a week is plenty of time to transfer knowledge.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Hey, a week is plenty of time to transfer knowledge.


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> How many "hardship" postings are there really?
> 
> I get sea duty for the Navy.   For the Air Force?  I keep hearing about Cold Lake and Bagotville.
> 
> Army?


Sea pay is specifically for the ships only to offset things like duty watches and sailing, has nothing to do with location, and you only get it while posted to a ship (so is similar to land duty allowance I think which replaced field pay). PLD is for cost of living offsets. Updating PLD is what is really needed for high cost of living areas, not messing around with another (poorly implemented) allowance.

There are a few actual remote postings (I think Yellowknife, Nunavut etc), and Alert is counted as a deployment tour. The foreign ones fall under their own separate program (that I can't remember the name of) but that's when they do the hazard assessment and scale it from there.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Oct 2022)

RangerRay said:


> Or when there was a RegF Bn of PPCLI in Winnipeg and *Esquimalt*…



You mean the QOR West?


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Supporting small combined arms teams dispersed across the country mirrors the battlefield observed in Ukraine.  Also a combined arms team (sub unit size) requires less space than a Brigade Group.
> 
> An argument for permanent combined arms groupings at the sub-unit level.


@Infanteer can address the issue with permanent sub groupings better than I. 

 I was once for it, but I have seen the effect that occurs on the Infantry skills of Heavy CAB’s down here, and the only way I see that working in Canada is a split of the Infantry trade to Light and Mech forces.  You basically lose any separate skills as they solely focus on being a Mech Infanteer working with tanks.   

Seeing dudes on Pre-Ranger from Armored units they have a serious disadvantage when it comes to dismounted work, and those units require often 2-3x more work than Light units getting ready for that course.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> @Infanteer can address the issue with permanent sub groupings better than I.
> 
> I was once for it, but I have seen the effect that occurs on the Infantry skills of Heavy CAB’s down here, and the only way I see that working in Canada is a split of the Infantry trade to Light and Mech forces.  You basically lose any separate skills as they solely focus on being a Mech Infanteer working with tanks.
> 
> Seeing dudes on Pre-Ranger from Armored units they have a serious disadvantage when it comes to dismounted work, and those units require often 2-3x more work than Light units getting ready for that course.



The nature of the Canadian situation is that we have to accept that we will not be all singing all dancing.  We can choose to excellent in a singular field or we can choose to be competent across a range of fields.

We have already cast our lot by permanently tying our infantry to the LAVs.


----------



## lenaitch (18 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> One of the phenomenas of the pandemic are people WFH that opted to move out of the urban centers.  Real estate is normally cheaper and they live their lifestyles the way they want.


Of course, "cheaper" is a relative term.  We're about 2 hours north of Toronto and prices shot up when the whole wfh thing started.  Now that some employers are requiring workers to show up a few days a week, some are having long commutes.  Then there are the folks who thought moving to their cottage was a good idea without realizing that cottage country in February is a whole lot different.


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Of course, "cheaper" is a relative term.  We're about 2 hours north of Toronto and prices shot up when the whole wfh thing started.  Now that some employers are requiring workers to show up a few days a week, some are having long commutes.  Then there are the folks who thought moving to their cottage was a good idea without realizing that cottage country in February is a whole lot different.


Same thing happened around here.

But some took advantage of lower prices before they jumped.  Or sold and we’re still able to afford a house in the extended outer area of the NCR.


----------



## Furniture (18 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Of course, "cheaper" is a relative term.  We're about 2 hours north of Toronto and prices shot up when the whole wfh thing started.  Now that some employers are requiring workers to show up a few days a week, some are having long commutes.  Then there are the folks who thought moving to their cottage was a good idea without realizing that cottage country in February is a whole lot different.


I suspect a few of the people who moved to PEI for remote working discovered the same thing. The island is beautiful spring through fall, but winter is long, snowy, and there is nothing open outside of Charlottetown.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Oct 2022)

"I want a well-paying job close to amenities that I like".  The proposed solution is cantonments near communities, with the rough-house training areas located a short distance away.

I suppose one solution is to give up politically mandated dispersion and concentrate into a couple of joint bases, something like Lewis-McChord.  One north of Edmonton (which is a provincial government town, note), and ON/QC can fight over the other.  Maybe shared somewhere not too far from Ottawa on either side of the river.


----------



## IKnowNothing (18 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> But some took advantage of lower prices before they jumped.  Or sold and we’re still able to afford a house in the extended outer area of the NCR.


Has the Carleton square area taken a big hit neighbourhood wise over the last decade?  I can't understand how cheap some of those units are.


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Has the Carleton square area taken a big hit neighbourhood wise over the last decade?  I can't understand how cheap some of those units are.


Do you mean Carleton Place?


----------



## dapaterson (18 Oct 2022)

Some condos are facing huge payments for necessary renovations / repairs; when that happens, the unit values plummet.  If you have to pay a $50K special assessment to the reserve fund, you resale will drop by at least that much.


----------



## IKnowNothing (18 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> Do you mean Carleton Place?


Nope, Carleton Square- Fisher and Meadowlands.  


dapaterson said:


> Some condos are facing huge payments for necessary renovations / repairs; when that happens, the unit values plummet.  If you have to pay a $50K special assessment to the reserve fund, you resale will drop by at least that much.


Thanks. Makes sense, those have got to be knocking on 50 years old now.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Oct 2022)

Build housing on bases. Then get rid of PLD, and all the special house hunting/selling benefits. How many apartment blocks would we really need to sort out a base? 

Then if you choose to buy a house or live off base its on you, not the tax payer and you make your own bed at that point.

Wages can’t go up substantially, its already breaking the defense budget with the rates we are currently paying (and we are basically the #1 paid military in the world for individual wages). I also don’t think we could every pay enough to make this attractive just for the money.


----------



## RangerRay (18 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> You mean the QOR West?


Or wherever Work Point Barracks were…


----------



## Furniture (18 Oct 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Build housing on bases. Then get rid of PLD, and all the special house hunting/selling benefits. How many apartment blocks would we really need to sort out a base?
> 
> Then if you choose to buy a house or live off base its on you, not the tax payer and you make your own bed at that point.
> 
> Wages can’t go up substantially, its already breaking the defense budget with the rates we are currently paying (and we are basically the #1 paid military in the world for individual wages). I also don’t think we could every pay enough to make this attractive just for the money.


So replace a problem with a new problem, then pretend we've fixed things?


----------



## TCM621 (18 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> So replace a problem with a new problem, then pretend we've fixed things?



That's typically the preferred CoA for these kinds of things.


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Oct 2022)

Does anyone know if the RCN or RCAF have released a plan yet?

Don't really expect anything, on the RCN side, but unless we tie up and retire some ships, while slowing down the ops tempo (including random fleet exercises) we don't have a hope in hell, and ships will 'self retire'. Believe we're still pulling instructors to fill at sea billets, and we've broken the schools anyway.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Oct 2022)

PLD is an overall cost of living, not an accomodation, allowance.

And in the late 90s, divesting quarters to encourage home ownership and equity on retirement was a deliberate policy choice.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> And in the late 90s, divesting quarters to encourage home ownership and equity on retirement was a deliberate policy choice.



And we should be encouraging that.  It's just fiscally prudent.  Can't live on the shacks or Q's for ever.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> So replace a problem with a new problem, then pretend we've fixed things?


Tell me you’ve served in the military, without telling me you’ve served in the military 😉


----------



## Furniture (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> And we should be encouraging that.  It's just fiscally prudent.  Can't live on the shacks or Q's for ever.


The problem is, the CAF went from encouraging people to buy through policy, to forcing people to buy through removing base housing as an option.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Or 3 RCHA in Winnipeg. And the LdSH and 1 Svc Bn in Calgary.
> 
> 😥


Oh gawd no, please let us stay in Edmonton!


----------



## CBH99 (18 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> The problem is, the CAF went from encouraging people to buy through policy, to forcing people to buy through removing base housing as an option.


Why/How did the CAF remove base housing as an option?


(I never lived on base when I was in, so not sure familiar with the details…I know around the time when I joined, 1999-2000, the general understanding I had was one could live fairly affordable if willing to live in base housing.)


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> So replace a problem with a new problem, then pretend we've fixed things?


Which new problem? You have guaranteed housing, which would be cheap/standardized on price across the country. No need for those other benefits then once that has been provided.

PLD is overall cost of living, but if housing is taken out of the equation, your pay is going to go about as far anywhere in the country. 

Homeownership isn’t always fiscally prudent, it CAN be, but it can also be a quick way to lose a lot of money. One of the main ways to lose a lot of money on it is moving constantly, which happens to be how the CAF tends to work. 

There are many things people don’t realize about homeownership, such as if you take the full 25 years to pay off your mortgage you have basically doubled the cost of your house just with interest by time its all said and done. Add in maintenance expenses, upgrades, etc. your sunk costs increase more. 

Divesting of shacks was more to do with trying to decrease overhead in a time of fiscal restraint and a relatively cheap external housing market. That housing market no longer exists and there are enough horror stories about CAF members working second jobs just to scrape by. 

I would have lived in shacks when I was regs if I was allowed as would most of my course mates.  But we weren’t and for those first few years it gives you a opportunity to build a lot of camaraderie. That comaraderie is one of the things that keeps people in. 

As I have said before, the more they try to make the CAF just another corporate hellscape, the less people will stay because there is a better office job which will pay more and treat you better civvy side every time.


----------



## Furniture (18 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Why/How did the CAF remove base housing as an option?
> 
> 
> (I never lived on base when I was in, so not sure familiar with the details…I know around the time when I joined, 1999-2000, the general understanding I had was one could live fairly affordable if willing to live in base housing.)


CFHA has been removing old PMQs and replacing them with far fewer units. In some cases, entire sections of the PMQ patch have disappeared, with no new houses built.

PMQs are still relatively affordable most places, if you can get into one.


Eaglelord17 said:


> Which new problem? You have guaranteed housing, which would be cheap/standardized on price across the country. No need for those other benefits then once that has been provided.


The new problem is it would be seen as a negative by anyone looking to buy and would be a step backward in preparing people for life after the CAF.


Eaglelord17 said:


> PLD is overall cost of living, but if housing is taken out of the equation, your pay is going to go about as far anywhere in the country.


That's an oversimplification of cost of living. Housing is a large factor, but by no means the only one worth noting.



Eaglelord17 said:


> Homeownership isn’t always fiscally prudent, it CAN be, but it can also be a quick way to lose a lot of money. One of the main ways to lose a lot of money on it is moving constantly, which happens to be how the CAF tends to work.
> 
> There are many things people don’t realize about homeownership, such as if you take the full 25 years to pay off your mortgage you have basically doubled the cost of your house just with interest by time its all said and done. Add in maintenance expenses, upgrades, etc. your sunk costs increase more.


Fair points, but that likely means the CAF should look at ways to reduce the number of times people are posted, rather than making living on base the only viable option.



Eaglelord17 said:


> I would have lived in shacks when I was regs if I was allowed as would most of my course mates.  But we weren’t and for those first few years it gives you a opportunity to build a lot of camaraderie. That comaraderie is one of the things that keeps people in.
> 
> As I have said before, the more they try to make the CAF just another corporate hellscape, the less people will stay because there is a better office job which will pay more and treat you better civvy side every time.


I lived in shacks for the first three years I was in, it was a great time, and I saved a lot of money doing it. I agree that living-in should remain an _option_ throughout your career, as it does build comradery in a way that Mon-Fri 8-4 doesn't. I think the best way to do it would be to build apartment buildings on base, it solves part of the housing issue, and gives people an option if they aren't interested in home ownership. 

I also agree that keeping the CAF as more than just another job is the best way to recruit and retain people.


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> I hate Ontario as much as the next Westerner,


Seems like a waste of energy hating people who don't even know you exist outside a chat room.

If you can't do anything to release it in the real world, impotent rage just seems like a way to develop an ulcer.

Ironically,  the government of Alberta has an advertising campaign to attract Ontario people to come live and work in that province.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2022)

Barracks life CAN save money, but all it did in my Petawawa and Calgary days was give me MORE drinking money…
  Moving out made me actually manage my money, and be less self destructive.


----------



## IKnowNothing (18 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I love the Meaford *area*,......and I spent 8 great years in Pet.  Everyone's mileage will vary on what a "shit hole" is.


I might be entirely wrong, but when it comes to Borden/Meaford "area" is very much the key word.  If you don't mind driving half an hour both those points on the map give someone a remarkable range of living preferences.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I love the Meaford area,......and I spent 8 great years in Pet.  Everyone's mileage will vary on what a "shit hole" is.



Meaford had nothing.  Worst accommodations and mess I've ever eaten at. Owen Sound is boring.  

Pet is fine.  Until your kids are teens.


----------



## lenaitch (18 Oct 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Build housing on bases. Then get rid of PLD, and all the special house hunting/selling benefits. How many apartment blocks would we really need to sort out a base?
> 
> Then if you choose to buy a house or live off base its on you, not the tax payer and you make your own bed at that point.
> 
> Wages can’t go up substantially, its already breaking the defense budget with the rates we are currently paying (and we are basically the #1 paid military in the world for individual wages). I also don’t think we could every pay enough to make this attractive just for the money.


How does that square with integrating the military with the surrounding community.  If part of the argument is to have bases near - but not in- urban communities, does the convenience of the member sentence their spouses and kids to the long commute?


Halifax Tar said:


> Meaford had nothing.  Worst accommodations and mess I've ever eaten at. Owen Sound is boring.
> 
> Pet is fine.  Until your kids are teens.


That's the problem with assessing communities as 'suitable'; it is so subjective.  One community that somebody enjoys would be a hell-hole for somebody else.  Some say you need to attract the urban population.  Ottawa is over a million people now.  Is Pet not close enough for young urban Ottawans (?) to consider joining?  Would living in Borden be attractive to some urban Torontonian who thinks anything north of Steeles is terre inconnue where dragons live?

Using southern Ontario as an example, I can't imagine what it would cost to buy/expropriate enough land for an all-singin'/all-dancin' base.  Even a re-purposed Borden would challenge many families to be able to afford housing, and adding in a few thousand certainly wouldn't drive the prices down.


----------



## TacticalTea (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Meaford had nothing.  Worst accommodations and mess I've ever eaten at. Owen Sound is boring.
> 
> Pet is fine.  Until your kids are teens.


As a future parent, what's the issue with Pet and teens people keep talking about?


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> As a future parent, what's the issue with Pet and teens people keep talking about?



Like alot of post industrial, broken towns Pet/Pembroke have drug use problems.  And  I would suspect higher than average teen pregnancy statistics. 

Not alot of future or economy there. 

It's sad really.  Pembroke was a bustling community.


----------



## RangerRay (18 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> As a future parent, what's the issue with Pet and teens people keep talking about?


As someone who grew up in a small  mining town, there’s not much for kids to do except drink, do drugs, fight and f@&$.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2022)

RangerRay said:


> As someone who grew up in a small  mining town, there’s not much for kids to do except drink, do drugs, fight and f@&$.


Competitive sports. 
    But yeah when the logging evaporated it was the only employer for a lot of the area near Pet (Chalk River being the outlier) other than the base.


----------



## RangerRay (18 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Competitive sports.


I keep hearing this. But where I grew up, the athletes were the worst perpetrators of all four activities!


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> How does that square with integrating the military with the surrounding community.  If part of the argument is to have bases near - but not in- urban communities, does the convenience of the member sentence their spouses and kids to the long commute?


To be 100% honest with you the military is not and never will be a family friendly career much in the same way working a fly in camp or other remote/job that requires a lot of movement will never be good for a family. 

The military shouldn’t be a lifelong career for most people, the frontline is better served by young fit soldiers than old and worn out ones.

If the member chooses to have a family they will have to choose to make sacrifices. Be it commutes, location, job options for spouses, deployments, distance from family, etc. My family has made those decisions several times, some of them choosing their career, others choosing their family. It is simply the nature of the beast.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Oct 2022)

Problem for all those industries is that people are voting with their feet and they are chronically short of the trained people they need.


----------



## Quirky (18 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> Seems like a waste of energy hating people who don't even know you exist outside a chat room.



Who said anything about people? 

Don't trigger so easily.


----------



## Furniture (18 Oct 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> To be 100% honest with you the military is not and never will be a family friendly career much in the same way working a fly in camp or other remote/job that requires a lot of movement will never be good for a family.
> 
> The military shouldn’t be a lifelong career for most people, the frontline is better served by young fit soldiers than old and worn out ones.
> 
> If the member chooses to have a family they will have to choose to make sacrifices. Be it commutes, location, job options for spouses, deployments, distance from family, etc. My family has made those decisions several times, some of them choosing their career, others choosing their family. It is simply the nature of the beast.


That's taking a rather narrowly combat arms focused view of the CAF. 

There are many jobs that people into their 40s and 50s can do that are needed in the CAF. Making conditions of service unpalatable for them is partly how we got here in the first place. We shouldn't be asking skilled technicians, pilots, etc., to choose between their family and their career.


----------



## quadrapiper (18 Oct 2022)

RangerRay said:


> I keep hearing this. But where I grew up, the athletes were the worst perpetrators of all four activities!


See: Hockey Canada in the Government Crosshairs


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> That's taking a rather narrowly combat arms focused view of the CAF.
> 
> There are many jobs that people into their 40s and 50s can do that are needed in the CAF. Making conditions of service unpalatable for them is partly how we got here in the first place. We shouldn't be asking skilled technicians, pilots, etc., to choose between their family and their career.


You are saying we shouldn’t yet I don’t see a alternative option. It is the nature of what the military and military service is.

Trying to make the military just another job is what got us here. Because the more it is just another job the less people will want to work it as you can get paid more and treated better elsewhere.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> That's taking a rather narrowly combat arms focused view of the CAF.
> 
> There are many jobs that people into their 40s and 50s can do that are needed in the CAF. Making conditions of service unpalatable for them is partly how we got here in the first place. We shouldn't be asking skilled technicians, pilots, etc., to choose between their family and their career.


You're right, there are many jobs that men and women in their late 30s, 40s and 50s can do and, as someone else (KevinB?) suggested, maybe at least some of those jobs ought to require a couple of years of service in the combat trades as an "entry" ticket.

Do we really need, just as an example, junior sailor/private/aviator electronics technicians? Maybe all those electronics techs and even some of the log trades should start their trade training after they have completed recruit and PI2 or even PI3 training as armoured, artillery, combat engineer or infantry soldiers and being their "careers" as PL5A members of whichever service needs them. The combat arms get the youngsters it really wants; the support trades get men and women who have made a career choice and who have some solid training behind them.


----------



## Furniture (18 Oct 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> You are saying we shouldn’t yet I don’t see a alternative option. It is the nature of what the military and military service is.
> 
> Trying to make the military just another job is what got us here. Because the more it is just another job the less people will want to work it as you can get paid more and treated better elsewhere.


Lots of alternatives have been posted in this thread. 

Treating people poorly, moving them unnecessarily, and excusing it with "it's the military, release if you don't like it" is what has gotten us here far more than a loss of mess/base culture. 

Like I said earlier, I'm not opposed to increasing base housing for both families and single members, I'm also not opposed to fixing messes to make them more appealing to members. What I am opposed to is doubling down on the bad parts of CAF service because of the idea that it's somehow what makes service "special" compared to other jobs. 


Edward Campbell said:


> You're right, there are many jobs that men and women in their late 30s, 40s and 50s can do and, as someone else (KevinB?) suggested, maybe at least some of those jobs ought to require a couple of years of service in the combat trades as an "entry" ticket.
> 
> Do we really need, just as an example, junior sailor/private/aviator electronics technicians? Maybe all those electronics techs and even some of the log trades should start their trade training after they have completed recruit and PI2 or even PI3 training as armoured, artillery, combat engineer or infantry soldiers and being their "careers" as PL5A members of whichever service needs them. The combat arms get the youngsters it really wants; the support trades get men and women who have made a career choice and who have some solid training behind them.


I agree, it also helps people understand how good their trade really is. 

It would also help with what @Eaglelord17 was getting at earlier with comradery, since there is far more in the combat arms than in most support trades.


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> You're right, there are many jobs that men and women in their late 30s, 40s and 50s can do and, as someone else (KevinB?) suggested, maybe at least some of those jobs ought to require a couple of years of service in the combat trades as an "entry" ticket.
> 
> Do we really need, just as an example, junior sailor/private/aviator electronics technicians? Maybe all those electronics techs and even some of the log trades should start their trade training after they have completed recruit and PI2 or even PI3 training as armoured, artillery, combat engineer or infantry soldiers and being their "careers" as PL5A members of whichever service needs them. The combat arms get the youngsters it really wants; the support trades get men and women who have made a career choice and who have some solid training behind them.


On the flip side there are a lot of people who would be useless at being combat arms (myself included) who are really good technicians (not me) who would never join if they had to go combat arms first. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Lots of options for VOTs out of combat arms, and pretty common to see INF, ARM etc in peoples MPRRs, but making it mandatory for other trades (especially ones that are already red/black) will just make recruiting harder, and with retention being bad already, it's a coin toss if people choose to just walk away after OFP when their contract runs out.

We need all kinds of people, and frankly a platoon of hackers can cause far more strategic impact than an infantry platoon, so with things generally being in shambles, may be a good time to look at things like that a lot more closely. We likely need both, but it's a lot faster to generate some capabilities than others, and if someone is hacking our banking system/infrastructure etc it's too late.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> You're right, there are many jobs that men and women in their late 30s, 40s and 50s can do and, as someone else (KevinB?) suggested, maybe at least some of those jobs ought to require a couple of years of service in the combat trades as an "entry" ticket.
> 
> Do we really need, just as an example, junior sailor/private/aviator electronics technicians? Maybe all those electronics techs and even some of the log trades should start their trade training after they have completed recruit and PI2 or even PI3 training as armoured, artillery, combat engineer or infantry soldiers and being their "careers" as PL5A members of whichever service needs them. The combat arms get the youngsters it really wants; the support trades get men and women who have made a career choice and who have some solid training behind them.



Making everyone come through a combat arms trade is a absolutely ridiculous idea. 

Every time this comes up I roll my eyes.  Just more examples of how the CAF needs to break away from this constant Army spin on things.

If the Army to wants to do that, fill yer boots.  But the rest of CAF shouldnt have to do something because one element has an overwhelming inferiority complex.


----------



## TCM621 (18 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> Lots of alternatives have been posted in this thread.
> 
> Treating people poorly, moving them unnecessarily, and excusing it with "it's the military, release if you don't like it" is what has gotten us here far more than a loss of mess/base culture.
> 
> ...



While to a certain extent people complaining about being yelled at, being posted or working late hours make me wonder just what organization they thought they were joining, no one is saying we should double down on those things. The problem is that the military is an inherently shitty job. The bottom line for every military member is that you could be ordered into a situation that is almost certain death. Even if you are a chair warrior you could be ordered to keep working until a misslr hits your office space. We ask people to do things no other employer asks people to do, we have mechanisms to enforce that that aren't legal in any other area of employment. 

There is no way we can make the military working experience as nice as a unioned job site or corporate office. I'm not saying don't change anything because all organizations need to grow or become stagnant. However, I am saying that banking on being a new friendly military isn't the way to make people join and or stay. 

The military has always had 2 primary motivators, 2 motivators which we are sorely lacking. The first is adventure. People join the military to see the world, meet interesting people and shoot them or stop others from shooting them. The second is we would take damn near anyone and make something out of them. No one cared if you grew up in a shitty environment, no one really cared what your were before as long as you pulled your weight. If you stuck around, you learned skills or attitudes employers want and you could come out of the military a changed person and rewrite your future. We suck at both of those right now. We have no money, no equipment and no political will to be actively engaged around the world so people can go their entire BE and never see anything more exotic than Wainwright or Cold Lake. At my current job the wait list for the opportunity to deploy or travel is measured in years. As for the second aspect, people used to hire military members because they could get shit done in terrible conditions and we tend to keep the complaining to a minimum. Now we reward complaining and we are attempting to cover all the sharp corners of the military so people feel safe. I have to be honest, the ameof people I know who try to do as little as possible, while bitching about having to do that much grows every year. Soldiers have always bitched but we tended to do it at our rank level (or one higher) then head out to do the job anyway. We also are incredibly selective of our soldiers despite the fact that we are dying for people. We only want certain applicants partially for political reasons and partially because our training system can no long handle the kind of people who used to join and get the rough edge knocked off them in Basic and their trades training. 


If we can get back to offering adventure or personal growth as the primary attraction of the CAF, you will see more recruits and less people leaving pissed off. You may see a few more 5 year and out types but I'm willing to bet we would see a lot less rage quits at 10-12 years or despair quits at 20+.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> You're right, there are many jobs that men and women in their late 30s, 40s and 50s can do and, as someone else (KevinB?) suggested, maybe at least some of those jobs ought to require a couple of years of service in the combat trades as an "entry" ticket.
> 
> Do we really need, just as an example, junior sailor/private/aviator electronics technicians? Maybe all those electronics techs and even some of the log trades should start their trade training after they have completed recruit and PI2 or even PI3 training as armoured, artillery, combat engineer or infantry soldiers and being their "careers" as PL5A members of whichever service needs them. The combat arms get the youngsters it really wants; the support trades get men and women who have made a career choice and who have some solid training behind them.



Do you really need a uniformed tech for those jobs at all?

I've had people fixing control systems by modems for over 30 years.  Loggies?  Do they need to be military at all?  Those people in "managerial" roles - could we strike them from the 60 or 70,000 reg force PYs and add them to the civvy rolls at NDHQ, or even as consultants.

And, as you note, spare the uniforms for the short term youngsters.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> Seems like a waste of energy hating people who don't even know you exist outside a chat room.
> 
> If you can't do anything to release it in the real world, impotent rage just seems like a way to develop an ulcer.
> 
> Ironically,  the government of Alberta has an advertising campaign to attract Ontario people to come live and work in that province.


So I don’t want to wag my toe in this water at all…

But we’re advertising life in Alberta because we need workers, and owning a home here in Alberta is cheaper than in Ontario.  Supposedly…

($250-300,000 can get you an entry level family home with a smaller yard, in a nicer new subdivision.  But for a throwing family you’re still looking in the $400K range…)


The idea is that people can sell their home around the GTA or Ottawa (any overpriced market there) and use that money as a substantial downpayment on a home here. 

Sounds good in theory.  I think the next year or two will cause a lot, and I mean a LOT, of broken spirits across the country in regards to people’s longer term plans — but that’s a huge thread derail I’ll spare us from.   

______


I dont think he’s saying he hates everyone in Ontario.  

But as a westerner, I have similar feelings… I _hate the idea of living in Ontario_ 😉 

Some beautiful areas, absolutely.  Truly.  Probably substantially more than here in Alberta once one gets away from the Rockies.

But the bald-ass prairie has a gritty charm to it that just feels like home.  I get to Ontario & see all the trees, and feel actual moisture in the air, and am instantly turned off from ever moving there… 😅🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Do you really need a uniformed tech for those jobs at all?
> 
> I've had people fixing control systems by modems for over 30 years.  Loggies?  Do they need to be military at all?  Those people in "managerial" roles - could we strike them from the 60 or 70,000 reg force PYs and add them to the civvy rolls at NDHQ, or even as consultants.
> 
> And, as you note, spare the uniforms for the short term youngsters.


They do when we send them overseas and make them work alongside the forces we have there. We also need to build experience for our overseas capable support trades which means more in uniform than strictly necessary. 

Imagine trying to order civilians to work overseas. ‘I refuse to work there and talk to my union rep if you don’t like that answer’. ‘Do you have a work order to go pick up that broken down lav 3?’ ‘I am not working overtime to get this done, I don’t care if you need it now, thats a you problem not a me problem.’ ‘I quit here is my two weeks notice’.


----------



## FJAG (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Making everyone come through a combat arms trade is a absolutely ridiculous idea.
> 
> Every time this comes up I roll my eyes.  Just more examples of how the CAF needs to break away from this constant Army spin on things.
> 
> If the Army to wants to do that, fill yer boots.  But the rest of CAF shouldnt have to do something because one element has an overwhelming inferiority complex.


Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it. 

My BMOQ was done at CFOCS Venture in Victoria and it impressed me with what the Navy was. A young sailor shouldn't spend the better part of their first year inland in classes having nothing to do with the Navy. BMQ and even language training should be given in a Navy environment, and, if possible, blended with Navy specific skill training so that they are properly developed in their formative year with a sense of belonging to the Navy. The same for the Air Force and the Army. Have sailors train sailors, soldiers train soldiers and aviators train aviators from the get go.

The residual problem is the purple trades. That said, we already have them select uniforms so let's make that stick by having them actually take their initial training in that environment. Let the cooks and the like do their BMQ and language training within their chosen environment and then come together at Borden for trades training but then return them to their environment for the bulk of their service. That might be complicated in some cases but it will work for the vast majority.



CBH99 said:


> But as a westerner, I have similar feelings… I _hate the idea of living in Ontario_ 😉
> 
> Some beautiful areas, absolutely. Truly. Probably substantially more than here in Alberta once one gets away from the Rockies.
> 
> But the bald-ass prairie has a gritty charm to it that just feels like home. I get to Ontario & see all the trees, and feel actual moisture in the air, and am instantly turned off from ever moving there… 😅🤷🏼‍♂️


Hoo-Boy. Where to start.

After growing up in Toronto but spending almost all of my adult life in Manitoba (where I met my wife) we moved back to Ontario around 15 years ago. I think I can say that with a kid in Ontario and one lived in Alberta and now in BC I can fairly say I've got my foot in both places and can honestly say that each has their pluses and minuses. 

My point is that most young people these days do not start off with the idea that they want to live elsewhere. They want a job, they want opportunities, they want to stay connected with family, they want some stability and if there is a chance to visit new places and do new things then so much the better.

I can't help but believe that if we can offer a person from Winnipeg a career which let's him remain in Manitoba lets say for 10 years, or a person from Vancouver a chance to stay in BC then we'll do better in recruiting. Currently only people from Quebec, while not having such a promise, have the odds in their favour of a career in their home province.

Do we even have statistics on what today's youth really want?

🍻


----------



## RangerRay (18 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> So I don’t want to wag my toe in this water at all…
> 
> But we’re advertising life in Alberta because we need workers, and owning a home here in Alberta is cheaper than in Ontario.  Supposedly…
> 
> ...


Alberta is too far east for me!


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Barracks life CAN save money, but all it did in my Petawawa and Calgary days was give me MORE drinking money…
> Moving out made me actually manage my money, and be less self destructive.


Petawawa was great for Friday night benders.  Roll out of work at 1400 on Friday and start drinking at the mess with the boys!  Those were the days!


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Oct 2022)

RangerRay said:


> I keep hearing this. But where I grew up, the athletes were the worst perpetrators of all four activities!


And, if we look at Hockey Canada’s issues, still are.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Oct 2022)

Notice how the names of the alleged perpetrators have been released, just like in the military?  

Oh wait.

They have lawyers.

And so get due process.


----------



## TCM621 (18 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.
> 
> My BMOQ was done at CFOCS Venture in Victoria and it impressed me with what the Navy was. A young sailor shouldn't spend the better part of their first year inland in classes having nothing to do with the Navy. BMQ and even language training should be given in a Navy environment, and, if possible, blended with Navy specific skill training so that they are properly developed in their formative year with a sense of belonging to the Navy. The same for the Air Force and the Army. Have sailors train sailors, soldiers train soldiers and aviators train aviators from the get go.
> 
> The residual problem is the purple trades. That said, we already have them select uniforms so let's make that stick by having them actually take their initial training in that environment. Let the cooks and the like do their BMQ and language training within their chosen environment and then come together at Borden for trades training but then return them to their environment for the bulk of their service. That might be complicated in some cases but it will work for the vast majority.



While I do actually subscribe to the idea that there is a lot of truth to the idea that everyone [can be] a rifleman if required, there is some merit to element specific BMQ. An element specific BMQ would allow the services to do away with courses like NETP, SQ and BAEQ. They would start absorbing the lingo from day one. As someone who has been in all three services, they have their own languages in a lot of ways. Students could be put through scenarios that are more likely to be seen in their careers.  We could add some of the skills one now picks up on other courses and probably end up with course that are similar in length to what we have now. In the RCAF case it would probably be a little shorter as they have 2 very distinct part between aircrew and technicians (including ATISS). Basic could be a little shorter and get them on their next phase of training quicker. 

As for purple trades, we could either split them by element or we could give them their own "element". They could train together and have their own DEU while wearing the working uniform of whichever element they work in. 

I think we would still need a number of common skills and we could have a core curriculum that everyone, in every element, has to take. This could include things like drill (element appropriate), personal weapons, first aid, etc. Then ea h element would fill in the blanks with what they think is important. I remember all the stuff I learned in Basic 25 years ago and the average Soldier doesn't learn half of those things anymore, but since they are all still mostly needed the Army created another course altogether. 

Each element already has schools in place that could do this, if you gave the elements back all the St. Jean positions, they could run these element specific courses at the CTC in Gagetown, WATC, the fleet schools in Esquimalt and Halifax, the ACA in Borden with very little difficulty).


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.


I think we all agree here that BMQ should be an element-specific thing. Haven't seen anyone put forward a good reason not to.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (19 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Making everyone come through a combat arms trade is a absolutely ridiculous idea.


Wholeheartedly agree. It's a hangover from the JArmy mentality that resides in Ottawa for some reason.


Halifax Tar said:


> Every time this comes up I roll my eyes.  Just more examples of how the CAF needs to break away from this constant Army spin on things.


Even the Army has seen this schism between Combat Arms trades, Combat Support, Combat Service Support, and HQ Support. We all have a role to play, and each trade and corps provides different effects. 

The CO of 3 RCR told me point blank he didn't need another infantryman with a different cap badge; he needed a skilled tradesman that could make sure he had C2 to get his people killing bad guys efficiently. If I couldn't be that skilled tradesman, I was useless to him. 

I couldve been thebhardeat charging airborne Pronto in the Army, but if I didnt know my stuff.... no Bueno. 


Halifax Tar said:


> If the Army to wants to do that, fill yer boots.  But the rest of CAF shouldnt have to do something because one element has an overwhelming inferiority complex.


We don't. Honestly. 

A lot of times it's foisted down on the Corps because a lot of the L2/3 positions that make those decisions lose sight of what support enablers bring to the fight. Its less inferiority complex than it is "these soldiers dont look soldiery enough for me... fix it." 

"Soldier first" is slowly dying and good riddance. We train folks to a degree that is unwarranted for the realities they face on Day One of OFP. Me learning how to muddle my way through a section attack isn't going to save anyone's life in the real world. Our TTP in Afghan for us in the Column? "Stay in the truck, leave if things get too dicey, let the FP elements deal with it." 

We don't train as we fight, mainly because we train poorly to perform tasks we never will in real life. But ..."hooray.. Army.... close with and destroy.....blah blah."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> How many "hardship" postings are there really?
> 
> I get sea duty for the Navy.   For the Air Force?  I keep hearing about Cold Lake and Bagotville.



Comox.  Esquimalt/Pat Bay.  Trenton was trending high enough I became disinterested in MAISR. 

Places without PLD like Greenwood that were considered affordable 5 years ago are trending up in COL and housing while offering very little in terms of employment for spouses/SOs.   Coldbrook -> Wolfville is less attractive driving with fuel prices where they went and are staying.

You’d be better to ask the question “what Wings are viewed as affordable?” at this point. 

12 Wing with a house in the Passage, as an example;  PLD and short commute.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Do you really need a uniformed tech for those jobs at all?
> 
> I've had people fixing control systems by modems for over 30 years.  Loggies?  Do they need to be military at all?  Those people in "managerial" roles - could we strike them from the 60 or 70,000 reg force PYs and add them to the civvy rolls at NDHQ, or even as consultants.
> 
> And, as you note, spare the uniforms for the short term youngsters.



I think is depends.  From the Navy side we need shore billets to create some semblance of sea to shore ratio, no matter how broken that is currently.

I def think we have positions in supply that could be better filled by, ideally, retired MMTs.  But we need billets in all lines of supply to properly develop our people.



FJAG said:


> Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.
> 
> My BMOQ was done at CFOCS Venture in Victoria and it impressed me with what the Navy was. A young sailor shouldn't spend the better part of their first year inland in classes having nothing to do with the Navy. BMQ and even language training should be given in a Navy environment, and, if possible, blended with Navy specific skill training so that they are properly developed in their formative year with a sense of belonging to the Navy. The same for the Air Force and the Army. Have sailors train sailors, soldiers train soldiers and aviators train aviators from the get go.
> 
> ...



@FJAG I owe you an apology, sorry if I was harsh.  I get my hackles up at this idea, and others.  I will suck back and reload next time.

We totally agree.  The services should be split including a disbandment of the Log branch with those pers belonging to their service.  All stop.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Does anyone know if the RCN or RCAF have released a plan yet?
> 
> Don't really expect anything, on the RCN side, but unless we tie up and retire some ships, while slowing down the ops tempo (including random fleet exercises) we don't have a hope in hell, and ships will 'self retire'. Believe we're still pulling instructors to fill at sea billets, and we've broken the schools anyway.


  While I haven’t seen a RCAF one myself, it’s been referred to for quite a while and we’ve changed some of the ways we do business and think.  I’m on leave but will check to see if there is an official RCAF or Air Div document.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.
> 
> My BMOQ was done at CFOCS Venture in Victoria and it impressed me with what the Navy was. A young sailor shouldn't spend the better part of their first year inland in classes having nothing to do with the Navy. BMQ and even language training should be given in a Navy environment, and, if possible, blended with Navy specific skill training so that they are properly developed in their formative year with a sense of belonging to the Navy. The same for the Air Force and the Army. Have sailors train sailors, soldiers train soldiers and aviators train aviators from the get go.
> 
> The residual problem is the purple trades. That said, we already have them select uniforms so let's make that stick by having them actually take their initial training in that environment. Let the cooks and the like do their BMQ and language training within their chosen environment and then come together at Borden for trades training but then return them to their environment for the bulk of their service.



Agree, but as long as the CAF is one service we will continue down this bumpy, meandering side road we are on now as a military.

We need to change the piece below, but I don’t believe it will happen.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Agree, but as long as the CAF is one service we will continue down this bumpy, meandering side road we are on now as a military.
> 
> We need to change the piece below, but I don’t believe it will happen.
> 
> View attachment 74324



It's really just personnel management policy that needs to change, isn't it ?  We have the titles and services already in place.  

I mean, you could even keep common schools for the branches that are pan CAF.  We don't need a triplicate of systems and processes like HR, Fin or Supply.  Just management of people according to their uniforms.  Including, in the Log Branch, different merit standings and CM depending on uniform. 

The more I learn about unification the more I realize that was the point it really all fell apart.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Oct 2022)

Yup I agree.   But we don’t have “services” right now we have a single service.  People don’t “join the RCN/RCAF”, they join the CAF.  

I’d change that, despite how small our Armed Forces are.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup I agree.   But we don’t have “services” right now we have a single service.  People don’t “join the RCN/RCAF”, they join the CAF.
> 
> I’d change that, despite how small our Armed Forces are.


Honestly IMHO the Purple trades need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice - one can have a "One CAF" and still have the different elements with their own personnel.   Some of those separate things may intertwine, and share common courses, but I would suspect that a Supply Tech in the Army, has vastly different materials to be familiar with than the Navy or AirForce, and while the process may be common - the items are not.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Wholeheartedly agree. It's a hangover from the JArmy mentality that resides in Ottawa for some reason.
> 
> Even the Army has seen this schism between Combat Arms trades, Combat Support, Combat Service Support, and HQ Support. We all have a role to play, and each trade and corps provides different effects.
> 
> ...




When one looks at the USMC, and their "Every Marine, a rifleman" concept, it isn't suggesting that all trades be a blood lusting death tech of extreme skill - it just means that everyone has some common understanding of land warfare - they can shoot, move and communicate.
  Realistically it should not inhibit anyones primary role to also be familiar with that, the biggest issue occurs more when certain trades or pipelines do a left turn and think they are a gunfighter first, and there is no one doing their primary role, that is when the wheels truly fall off the cart.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup I agree.   But we don’t have “services” right now we have a single service.  People don’t “join the RCN/RCAF”, they join the CAF.
> 
> I’d change that, despite how small our Armed Forces are.



Right, but when a Boatswain, Infanteer or AVN Tech joins they are managed within their element.  Simply do the same for everyone. 

Right now I fall under CMP. Take away CMP and insert RCN.  Just like the rest of the anchor wearing Navy folks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly IMHO the Purple trades need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice - one can have a "One CAF" and still have the different elements with their own personnel.   Some of those separate things may intertwine, and share common courses, but I would suspect that a Supply Tech in the Army, has vastly different materials to be familiar with than the Navy or AirForce, and while the process may be common - the items are not.



Agree 100%.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> When one looks at the USMC, and their "Every Marine, a rifleman" concept, it isn't suggesting that all trades be a blood lusting death tech of extreme skill - it just means that everyone has some common understanding of land warfare - they can shoot, move and communicate.
> Realistically it should not inhibit anyones primary role to also be familiar with that, the biggest issue occurs more when certain trades or pipelines do a left turn and think they are a gunfighter first, and there is no one doing their primary role, that is when the wheels truly fall off the cart.



Small arms competency should be an everyone job.  But for most that should be simple and safe operation of the fire arm.

Anyone should be able to stand gate guard.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (19 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly IMHO the Purple trades need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice - one can have a "One CAF" and still have the different elements with their own personnel.   Some of those separate things may intertwine, and share common courses, but I would suspect that a Supply Tech in the Army, has vastly different materials to be familiar with than the Navy or AirForce, and while the process may be common - the items are not.


Unification was never supposed to see this happen. Personnel Branches were an afterthought along with CF Greens and unified ranks.

The C&E Branch is slowly heaving it's final breaths and for good reason. Any common ground because "we all are communicators..." is no longer. The RCN hold onto their folks with fervor, the RCAF and the ATIS trade want back under Air Ops, the Sig Int folks want to run off with CFIOG, while the RCCS wants our heritage and traditions back entirely. There wasn't the pay off that was envisioned when this all kicked off. 

Now factor the Log Branch and you'll see similar fault lines.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Right, but when a Boatswain, Infanteer or AVN Tech joins they are managed within their element.  Simply do the same for everyone.
> 
> Right now I am fall under CMP. Take away CMP and insert RCN.  Just like the rest of the anchor wearing Navy folks.



It would be easier and quicker to change at that level, but also easier and quicker to reserve when the next CDS doesn’t like it.  Change the legislation and that would be harder for future good idea technicians to reverse back to that meandering road we’re on now as a military.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> It would be easier and quicker to change at that level, but also easier and quicker to reserve when the next CDS doesn’t like it.  Change the legislation and that would be harder for future good idea technicians to reserve.



That's a good point.  Look at the way Army plays silly buggers with the PLQ/JLC every couple years. 

Maybe take the easy road to get the ball rolling and change the legislation as time goes on.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Small arms competency should be an everyone job.  But for most that should be simple and safe operation of the fire arm.
> 
> Anyone should be able to stand gate guard.


I think it needs to go beyond Gate Guard, as anyone should be able to conduct (or be a useful contributor to) an effective defense.  Most should be able also to conduct a limited attack with suppression, fire and movement.  

That should be a week at most for any trade. 
 Then a few days of refresher annually.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> _Unification was never supposed to see this happen. _Personnel Branches were an afterthought along with CF Greens and unified ranks.
> 
> The C&E Branch is slowly heaving it's final breaths and for good reason. Any common ground because "we all are communicators..." is no longer. The RCN hold onto their folks with fervor, the RCAF and the ATIS trade want back under Air Ops, the Sig Int folks want to run off with CFIOG, while the RCCS wants our heritage and traditions back entirely. There wasn't the pay off that was envisioned when this all kicked off.
> 
> Now factor the Log Branch and you'll see similar fault lines.


Sorry, but this was precisely what Group Captain (ret'd) Bill Lee, Defence Minister Paul Hellyer's chief of staff back in the mid 1960s, wanted: an "all-singing, all-dancing" military in which a person could join as <purple trade> and serve successive tours on a flying station, a warship and in an armoured regiment without any ( at least not much) further training. His "model" was, he said, the United States Marine Corps. He may well have not understood what he had seen and heard - he was, after all, a public relation officer (although he had been a RCAF navigator (serving with the RAF's Ferry Command) in WWII) - but that was _*his*_ vision  which, when coupled with Mr Hellyer's fairly obvious distaste for the RCN and the Canadian Army (both of which he saw as being far, far too British), and his fascination with Robert McNamara's "modern management" techniques, resulted in the CF we have today.

Not everything Paul Helllyer (and Bill Lee) did was wrong. A proper* joint* (unified) force was and remains a great idea. Integrated support agencies - like strategic communications (C²) networks and general hospitals work fine - but, I was told, back in the '60s by a mid-ranked officer who was "in the room," that the US told us (Hellyer, Lee and political and military staffs), formally, that what they called "purple suiting" (integration) was bound to fail. We went the *integration* route and called it *unification*. 

We did *unify* some thing: Maritime Command and Mobile Command and Materiel Command were all *unified*. But we went a step - actually several steps farther: Training Command, for example, was both *unified* and _integrated_ and my experience (admittedly limited by my own personal experience, but which included a tour at the school in the 1970s) indicated, to me, that while* unification* was a good idea _integration_ was and remains a monumental failure.

Your former CO was right: a battalion or regimental Signal Officer needs to make the unit's C² system work. But I would argue that (s)he can only do that well enough if (s)he understands how the unit works, which means how and why its subunits and weapon systems work - in other words, only a trained soldier can be a good Army unit Signal Officer. Now, a Signal officer (or NCO) who is well enough trained to work, well, in an Army combat unit can also work, well enough, in a fixed (strategic) C² system but, I would suggest (s)he cannot go, without a lot off further training, and work well in an air defence warning and control system ... and vice versa. Bill Lee was wrong. *Unification* - joint commands and formations -  was a good idea; _integration_ - "purple suiting" and the "jolly green jumper" for everyone and so on - and everything that flowed from it has weakened us as a military force and those who continue to support it are happy with a second rate force.

(Parenthetically, a very few years ago - just pre-COVID - I listened as more than a couple of my retired RCN and RCAF friends (_Joint_ Staff College classmates - a few being retired GOFOs) chatted about breaking up the "purple trades" - C&E and Log were high on their lists - and bringing them back into their single service environments for training and career management. I doubt they've stopped lobbying for that.)


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> Sorry, but this was precisely what Group Captain (ret'd) Bill Lee, Defence Minister Paul Hellyer's chief of staff back in the mid 1960s, wanted: an "all-singing, all-dancing" military in which a person could join as <purple trade> and serve successive tours on a flying station, a warship and in an armoured regiment without any ( at least not much) further training. His "model" was, he said, the United States Marine Corps. He may well have not understood what he had seen and heard - he was, after all, a public relation officer (although he had been a RCAF navigator (serving with the RAF's Ferry Command) in WWII) - but that was _*his*_ vision  which, when coupled with Mr Hellyer's fairly obvious distaste for the RCN and the Canadian Army (both of which he saw as being far, far too British), and his fascination with Robert McNamara's "modern management" techniques, resulted in the CF we have today.
> 
> Not everything Paul Helllyer (and Bill Lee) did was wrong. A proper* joint* (unified) force was and remains a great idea. Integrated support agencies - like strategic communications (C²) networks and general hospitals work fine - but, I was told, back in the '60s by a mid-ranked officer who was "in the room," that the US told us (Hellyer, Lee and political and military staffs), formally, that what they called "purple suiting" (integration) was bound to fail. We went the *integration* route and called it *unification*.
> 
> ...



Please ask your friends to lobby harder.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I think it needs to go beyond Gate Guard, as anyone should be able to conduct (or be a useful contributor to) an effective defense.  Most should be able also to conduct a limited attack with suppression, fire and movement.
> 
> That should be a week at most for any trade.
> Then a few days of refresher annually.



If we can quantify a realistic plausible reason for for your expanding of SA competency i'd support it.  

Otherwise that can be left to theatre specific work up training IMHO.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2022)

Empire builders gonna empire build.

Given that the RCN manages and is responsible for hard sea trades and has failed monumentally at that for (checks watch) 20+ years. why would we give them additional personnel training responsibilities?

The Army likewise owns RCEME and likewise has severe problems there...

Perhaps the problem is not "unification" and "common standards" but rather poor leadership.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> If we can quantify a realistic plausible reason for for your expanding of SA competency i'd support it.
> 
> Otherwise that can be left to theatre specific work up training IMHO.



Or, if it requires only a week or so of effort to turn out a security guard force - then hand the job off to the Militia.....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Empire builders gonna empire build.
> 
> Given that the RCN manages and is responsible for hard sea trades and has failed monumentally at that for (checks watch) 20+ years. why would we give them additional personnel training responsibilities?
> 
> ...


They've made a monumental cluster of it all 😎

They can't even follow basic policies or read and understand simple instructions.  It's actually hilarious to watch.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Empire builders gonna empire build.
> 
> Given that the RCN manages and is responsible for hard sea trades and has failed monumentally at that for (checks watch) 20+ years. why would we give them additional personnel training responsibilities?
> 
> ...



Or perhaps the 70% solution is the best anyone can hope for and should adjust their sights accordingly?


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Empire builders gonna empire build.
> 
> Given that the RCN manages and is responsible for hard sea trades and has failed monumentally at that for (checks watch) 20+ years. why would we give them additional personnel training responsibilities?
> 
> ...



Your point(s) is/are valid.

Looking at WENG and MARTECH world's.  Alot of the time when we talk about those two "experiments" we forget there was big support for the change in the upper echelons of those branches and trades.  I would argue in both instances the trades themselves have to carry the lion's share of the blame for the amalgamations.  And it probably indicative of senior folks who are out of touch with the coal face.

In fact in talking to the WENG folks most are pretty ok with it. MARTECH, not so much.

Perhaps a compromise is generally uniform specific employment and career development ? But keeping ownership in the hands of CMP.


----------



## FJAG (19 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> It would be easier and quicker to change at that level, but also easier and quicker to reserve when the next CDS doesn’t like it.  Change the legislation and that would be harder for future good idea technicians to reverse back to that meandering road we’re on now as a military.


That's a really good point. My first thought was "No need. You can do it all with regulations". But you are absolutely right. At some point in every transformation plan you need to have a "point of no return" so that the objectives of the transformation cannot be reversed, or easily reversed.

When unification and integration rolled through, eliminating the three services by legislation was that point. That said, even legislation is not final as proved by the fact that we're discussing legislative changes. It does move the process to a higher level where change becomes less likely and that, perhaps, is why a reversal will probably never happen but a regulatory change might.

🍻


----------



## FJAG (19 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Given that the RCN manages and is responsible for hard sea trades and has failed monumentally at that for (checks watch) 20+ years. why would we give them additional personnel training responsibilities?


Because then they would have no one else to blame and you'd know exactly which GOFOs to fire.



dapaterson said:


> Perhaps the problem is not "unification" and "common standards" but rather poor leadership.


It's not a choose one from Column A or one from Column B matter. It can be both and probably is.

🍻


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Or, if it requires only a week or so of effort to turn out a security guard force - then hand the job off to the Militia.....


The RCAF its own dedicated force protection people for whom it is NOT a secondary duty that takes away from their primary duty.  WASF/BASF doesn’t work when they are actually plan A in many cases.  We need air-minded people to guard our technology 24/7 and this requirement is coming extremely fast.  MPs have traditionally maintained the role of primary security force given their posture allow them to respond to security incidents but they are not the answer.  We need a specific trade dedicated to airfield security guarding our installations with weapons, 24/7.  If we don’t have that soon, we can forget all the new capabilities we plan on buying.  And we’ll once again be left behind by our allies.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Your point(s) is/are valid.
> 
> Looking at WENG and MARTECH world's.  Alot of the time when we talk about those two "experiments" we forget there was big support for the change in the upper echelons of those branches and trades.  I would argue in both instances the trades themselves have to carry the lion's share of the blame for the amalgamations.  And it probably indicative of senior folks who are out of touch with the coal face.
> 
> ...


The fact anyone thought MARTECH would work out is pure ignorance. The Brits tried that experiment before us and it failed horribly for obvious and predictable reasons. You can’t take 3-5 distinct and seperate trades (millwright, welder, electrician, plumber, limited machining, and a little bit of carpentry in there for good fun) throw them together and expect it to work, especially not with the training time we have as a organization. 

I suspect it was more to do with, stokers are red, but E-techs and hull techs aren’t therefore by forcing those 3 jobs together somehow we won’t end up with stokers in the red anymore. Instead it just resulted in those two other trades in the red as well.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Your point(s) is/are valid.
> 
> Looking at WENG and MARTECH world's.  Alot of the time when we talk about those two "experiments" we forget there was big support for the change in the upper echelons of those branches and trades.  I would argue in both instances the trades themselves have to carry the lion's share of the blame for the amalgamations.  And it probably indicative of senior folks who are out of touch with the coal face.
> 
> ...


For the record, the recommended MARTECH trade maintained the HTs as a specialization from QL5 (based on the RN trying not having one and saying it's an awful idea). That's going to take us another decade to get fixed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The RCAF its own dedicated force protection people for whom it is NOT a secondary duty that takes away from their primary duty.  WASF/BASF doesn’t work when they are actually plan A in many cases.  We need air-minded people to guard our technology 24/7 and this requirement is coming extremely fast.  MPs have traditionally maintained the role of primary security force given their posture allow them to respond to security incidents but they are not the answer.  We need a specific trade dedicated to airfield security guarding our installations with weapons, 24/7.  If we don’t have that soon, we can forget all the new capabilities we plan buying.  And we’ll once again be left behind by our allies.



I thought the RCAF Operations trades were supposed to handle that ?

I know a few years back there was talk of a airfield security trade, like the RAF Regiment.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The RCAF its own dedicated force protection people for whom it is NOT a secondary duty that takes away from their primary duty.  WASF/BASF doesn’t work when they are actually plan A in many cases.  We need air-minded people to guard our technology 24/7 and this requirement is coming extremely fast.  MPs have traditionally maintained the role of primary security force given their posture allow them to respond to security incidents but they are not the answer.  We need a specific trade dedicated to airfield security guarding our installations with weapons, 24/7.  If we don’t have that soon, we can forget all the new capabilities we plan on buying.  And we’ll once again be left behind by our allies.



The problem seems to be that nobody wants to supply that security force.    And I agree that it is absolutely necessary.  But everybody is to busy doing "important' stuff.

I guess you are down to the Commissionaires.


----------



## QV (19 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The RCAF its own dedicated force protection people for whom it is NOT a secondary duty that takes away from their primary duty.  WASF/BASF doesn’t work when they are actually plan A in many cases.  We need air-minded people to guard our technology 24/7 and this requirement is coming extremely fast.  MPs have traditionally maintained the role of primary security force given their posture allow them to respond to security incidents but they are not the answer.  We need a specific trade dedicated to airfield security guarding our installations with weapons, 24/7.  If we don’t have that soon, we can forget all the new capabilities we plan on buying.  And we’ll once again be left behind by our allies.


You shouldn't have AVN techs standing around guarding a hangar.

The MP should be re-rolled entirely to a "force protection" unit where they are responsible for armed security of all defence installations. Roll this unit into DGDS. I envision they would provide all security guard functions 24/7, security systems monitoring, patrolling/dogs etc... including the specialty security functions like TASO and close protection and embassy security. Get rid of the commissionaires (you'd prob save 50 or $60M), hand over police functions to civilian police (who'd only come out for a call anyway), unit disciplinary matters handled by unit. 

This would allow robust and real security domestically, a proper D&S force for deployed camp security, convoy security, airfield security, the whole gambit, PW handling. And everyone else can focus on their real job and not rotate through guarding a camp or wounded prisoners in a hospital for example. You'd need to take the word "police" completely out of the name... and that will be hard for some.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I thought the RCAF Operations trades were supposed to handle that ?
> 
> I know a few years back there was talk of a airfield security trade, like the RAF Regiment.



The RCAF Ops trades are essentially SLJO embodied in the military occupational structure.  They lack the numbers, either in current or future models, to deliver the greatly enhanced security that's required for more modern platforms.


----------



## CBH99 (19 Oct 2022)

TCM621 said:


> While to a certain extent people complaining about being yelled at, being posted or working late hours make me wonder just what organization they thought they were joining, no one is saying we should double down on those things. The problem is that the military is an inherently shitty job. The bottom line for every military member is that you could be ordered into a situation that is almost certain death. Even if you are a chair warrior you could be ordered to keep working until a misslr hits your office space. We ask people to do things no other employer asks people to do, we have mechanisms to enforce that that aren't legal in any other area of employment.
> 
> There is no way we can make the military working experience as nice as a unioned job site or corporate office. I'm not saying don't change anything because all organizations need to grow or become stagnant. However, I am saying that banking on being a new friendly military isn't the way to make people join and or stay.
> 
> ...


THIS!!  THIS is what I’ve been trying to say ever since I released in 2011.  Exactly this.




Halifax Tar said:


> Making everyone come through a combat arms trade is a absolutely ridiculous idea.
> 
> Every time this comes up I roll my eyes.  Just more examples of how the CAF needs to break away from this constant Army spin on things.
> 
> If the Army to wants to do that, fill yer boots.  But the rest of CAF shouldnt have to do something because one element has an overwhelming inferiority complex.


I agree in that we should not make people come up through a combat arms trade. 

In the USMC, every Marine is a rifleman (rifleperson?) first, regardless of trade.  Everybody has some basic combat skills taught. 

This also helps maintain that assertive posture the USMC prides itself on, as well as its members. 


Coming up through a combat trade?  I agree, ridiculous. 

But being able to effectively operate in a combat scenario should be maintained. 


EDIT - Nevermind, KevinB beat me to it


----------



## quadrapiper (19 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> (Parenthetically, a very few years ago - just pre-COVID - I listened as more than a couple of my retired RCN and RCAF friends (_Joint_ Staff College classmates - a few being retired GOFOs) chatted about breaking up the "purple trades" - C&E and Log were high on their lists - and bringing them back into their single service environments for training and career management. I doubt they've stopped lobbying for that.)


Also parenthetically: would be great to add my branch and organization to the de-purpling list, somewhere down around the bottom. We're extraordinarily distant from the RCN, CA, and RCAF, and becoming more so.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> The problem seems to be that nobody wants to supply that security force.    And I agree that it is absolutely necessary.  But everybody is to busy doing "important' stuff.
> 
> I guess you are down to the Commissionaires.


Except that we won’t get the technology if we stick to the current model.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> You shouldn't have AVN techs standing around guarding a hangar.
> 
> The MP should be re-rolled entirely to a "force protection" unit where they are responsible for armed security of all defence installations. Roll this unit into DGDS. I envision they would provide all security guard functions 24/7, security systems monitoring, patrolling/dogs etc... including the specialty security functions like TASO and close protection and embassy security. Get rid of the commissionaires (you'd prob save 50 or $60M), hand over police functions to civilian police (who'd only come out for a call anyway), unit disciplinary matters handled by unit.
> 
> This would allow robust and real security domestically, a proper D&S force for deployed camp security, convoy security, airfield security, the whole gambit, PW handling. And everyone else can focus on their real job and not rotate through guarding a camp or wounded prisoners in a hospital for example. You'd need to take the word "police" completely out of the name... and that will be hard for some.


No.  You don’t need the level of training and expertise MPs have to conduct airfield security. They may be part of the airfield security construct but they should not be responsible for it.  It is a RCAF problem that needs an RCAF solution.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> No.  You don’t need the level of training and expertise MPs have to conduct airfield security.


You are correct you need more...


SupersonicMax said:


> They may be part of the airfield security construct but they should not be responsible for it.  It is a RCAF problem that needs an RCAF solution.


Probably one reason MP's should be broken back to their Elements - aspects the RCAF need don't necessarily correlate to Army or RCN needs from MP's.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Except that we won’t get the technology if we stick to the current model.


Disconcerting.

So we do need a Vital Point Security Force?  Something with, perhaps a mounted patrol capability and a GBAD-CRAM capability?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2022)

No.


----------



## QV (19 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> You are correct you need more...
> 
> Probably one reason MP's should be broken back to their Elements - aspects the RCAF need don't necessarily correlate to Army or RCN needs from MP's.



As long as MPs are involved in "policing" they will never be able to do anything else, resource wise. Protecting an army base, port or an airfield will have differences of course but the fundamentals are the same. There would be specialty requirements in different elements, such as foreign port liaison or aircraft security officer... etc.

I'm saying delete "policing" altogether as a function of the MP and re-roll them entirely as a force protection force. 

They already have almost all the basic requirements to hit the ground running. You would, of course, want to adapt the initial and progressive training to develop the Group into a robust specialized security force. Think of all the secondary duty crap and tasks DND/CAF could dump onto this Group who would be(come) the pros, while having their AVN techs do AVN stuff and their infantry do infantry stuff... etc.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> You are correct you need more...
> 
> Probably one reason MP's should be broken back to their Elements - aspects the RCAF need don't necessarily correlate to Army or RCN needs from MP's.



I have the impression Yankee "Snowdrops" are nothing like "Redcaps".  Especially now.

Your MPs apparently have become Riot Police for dealing with civilians.  They seem to be a specialized less than lethal form of infantry.  I thought our MPs were primarily to police soldiers, sailors and aviators.

The MPs are not a guard force.

@SupersonicMax is right about the specialized need.  Peculiarly that need was identified at least as far back as "Challenge and Commitment" - 1987.

And it is still being ducked.

My surprise was that somebody has actually called us on it.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> No.



Who then?


----------



## QV (19 Oct 2022)

TBH, I thought the suggestion to disband the MPs as police would be much more popular on this site...


----------



## Quirky (19 Oct 2022)

Getting techs to guard those shiny new F-35s isn't a solution when there aren't enough techs to fix them. You'll need to create a whole new RCAF security force trade to do those tasks. The thought of guarding the QRA in Cold Lake or wherever as a career rather than a tasking gives me nightmarish flashbacks.


----------



## Remius (19 Oct 2022)

RCAF Regiment.


----------



## QV (19 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> The thought of guarding the QRA in Cold Lake or wherever as a career rather than a tasking gives me nightmarish flashbacks.



Yes, if you were to do it wrong like the way the CAF has been doing for ever... then it would definitely suck.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2022)

Plan B

USAF F35A Bases

Edwards Air Force Base, California.
Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
*Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.*
*Truax Truax Field Air National Guard Base, Wisconsin.*
*Burlington Air National Guard Base, Vermont.*
I've highlighted the two alternatives to Cold Lake and Bagotville.  Then you don't need a Canadian security force.  Add a couple of Canadian Wings to the USAF.

Edited to add the Wisconsin base - pretty close to Winnipeg.


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> One of the phenomenas of the pandemic are people WFH that opted to move out of the urban centers.  Real estate is normally cheaper and they live their lifestyles the way they want.


But are they moving in large enough numbers to matter? The 2021 Census was a snapshot after over a year of pandemic, and it talks about the same trends — rural depopulation and growth in cities — that we’ve been seeing for decades. If people were actually cashing out their houses in the GTA and moving where it’s cheap, we’d be seeing different demographics on the ground in rural Newfoundland.


----------



## Furniture (19 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Plan B
> 
> USAF F35A Bases
> 
> ...


Americans don't want RCAF jets based in their country any more than Canadians want USAF F-35s and security teams on our bases. 

The Americans being hosted in Bagotville, and Cold Lake is more likely than Canadians being hosted down south.


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Plan B
> 
> USAF F35A Bases
> 
> ...


Move the entire fighter force because we can't be arsed to form a credible security force?



QV said:


> Yes, if you were to do it wrong like the way the CAF has been doing for ever... then it would definitely suck.


You haven't really expanded on how you'd enforce law & order in the field, or how civilian LE agencies would take up the workload on base, when they're already barely taking on the few SA cases that we shove their way. 

And most essentially, how are they going to deal with services offences?

I see no reason to eliminate the function of the MPs. If we really think a stronger security force is necessary, then perhaps simply attaching the MPs to a greater, all-encompassing, standing Force Protection group might be the better option. You could probably fold NST in there as well (does it HAVE to be element-specific? Or can we cut down on structure and say FP is FP?).


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> Getting techs to guard those shiny new F-35s isn't a solution when there aren't enough techs to fix them. You'll need to create a whole new RCAF security force trade to do those tasks. The thought of guarding the QRA in Cold Lake or wherever as a career rather than a tasking gives me nightmarish flashbacks.


How did we guard the nuclear weapons back in the day? Was it an MP role, or did the US provide the force protection along with the USAF Ordnance detachments?


----------



## kev994 (19 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> No.  You don’t need the level of training and expertise MPs have to conduct airfield security. They may be part of the airfield security construct but they should not be responsible for it.  It is a RCAF problem that needs an RCAF solution.


Sooo…. Air ops officers?


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I have the impression Yankee "Snowdrops" are nothing like "Redcaps".  Especially now.
> 
> Your MPs apparently have become Riot Police for dealing with civilians.  They seem to be a specialized less than lethal form of infantry.  I thought our MPs were primarily to police soldiers, sailors and aviators.


US Mil MP roles have changed from Pre-GWOT and are changing again post GWOT.  
    MP’s did a lot of convoy escort work in Iraq and Afghan.  

The USAF has Security Forces - that are used for security and escort roles. 

We generally have contract security officers who do domestic base security/access control.  




Kirkhill said:


> The MPs are not a guard force.


Depends what you mean by that.   
   Realistically all the Army needs from MP’s is traffic management, route work - and EPW control.  
   Not very significant in Peacetime - but absolutely critical in war.   

Shortsighted senior leaders have ignored those requirements and tried to make them a Constabulary, but that leaves a lot missing from the needed role in conflicts. 


Kirkhill said:


> @SupersonicMax is right about the specialized need.  Peculiarly that need was identified at least as far back as "Challenge and Commitment" - 1987.
> 
> And it is still being ducked.
> 
> My surprise was that somebody has actually called us on it.


----------



## QV (19 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Move the entire fighter force because we can't be arsed to form a credible security force?
> 
> 
> You haven't really expanded on how you'd enforce law & order in the field, or how civilian LE agencies would take up the workload on base, when they're already barely taking on the few SA cases that we shove their way.
> ...


Maintenance of discipline is a function of the chain of command.

The policing workload wouldn't be huge and could be absorbed by civilian police at a small cost, particularly since they aren't dealing with the CAFisms.

Service offences - see first point.

My solution is almost PY neutral and recovers a shit load of dollars spent on contracted security that can offset the costs of outsourced local police response to actual crimes and actual calls for service (which are few comparatively). It further takes all the security functions off the plates of those that are trained to do other jobs. (Bonus: DND/CAF can no longer be blamed for botched SA case files! Everyone wins.)

I'd say FP is FP... base, airfield, port security is the baseline. Support to Ops would include convoy/camp security details, PW handling... NCIU... Other specialist fields would include embassy security, CP, TASO, surveillance, perhaps NST if its rolled up. QRF, ERT, CAT type capabilities. Maybe dogs as a supporting function. Lots of interesting training and things to do, it would be a really cool and decent career. But only if it's done right, with lots of technology in support. And CAF/DND would actually get what they pay for.


----------



## QV (19 Oct 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> How did we guard the nuclear weapons back in the day? Was it an MP role, or did the US provide the force protection along with the USAF Ordnance detachments?


MP role.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> Maintenance of discipline is a function of the chain of command.


agreed 


QV said:


> The policing workload wouldn't be huge and could be absorbed by civilian police at a small cost, particularly since they aren't dealing with the CAFisms.


 I would suggest the CAF hire the RCMP for Contract Policing on posts, you would not need a lot of them at each base anyway. 
But if you want a standard of enforcement etc, that is the only way to get it - you won't get that from Local LE
 Plus there are bonuses to using Fed not Provincial or Municipal LE in terms of Security Clearance etc 
   You can use Commissionaires for domestic base access control if you don't want/need armed personnel, or if you wanted armed security - you can hire Brinks etc.  



QV said:


> Service offences - see first point.
> 
> My solution is almost PY neutral and recovers a shit load of dollars spent on contracted security that can offset the costs of outsourced local police response to actual crimes and actual calls for service (which are few comparatively). It further takes all the security functions off the plates of those that are trained to do other jobs. (Bonus: DND/CAF can no longer be blamed for botched SA case files! Everyone wins.)
> 
> I'd say FP is FP... base, airfield, port security is the baseline. Support to Ops would include convoy/camp security details, PW handling... NCIU... Other specialist fields would include embassy security, CP, TASO, surveillance, perhaps NST if its rolled up. QRF, ERT, CAT type capabilities. Maybe dogs as a supporting function. Lots of interesting training and things to do, it would be a really cool and decent career. But only if it's done right, with lots of technology in support. And CAF/DND would actually get what they pay for.


I think you are trying to bunch too many things into one trade above, some already fall under CANSOFCOM.
  By divesting the LE role - all investigations etc drop off the mandate - off the RCMP.

The you can look at the element specific needs - but you won't get any real value by having it a purple trade.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> Sooo…. Air ops officers?



And…






						Air Operations Support Technician | Canadian Armed Forces
					






					forces.ca


----------



## QV (19 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> agreed
> 
> I would suggest the CAF hire the RCMP for Contract Policing on posts, you would not need a lot of them at each base anyway.
> But if you want a standard of enforcement etc, that is the only way to get it - you won't get that from Local LE
> ...


Agree RCMP would be the best choice to contract out the LE side.

The only thing I listed the MPs don't already do is NST, they had a few dogs but granted those might gone now too. CAT is a role within CP ops, ERT/QRF would be tailored to convoy and security ops. 

We do agree the MPs should drop policing and do way better supporting the CAF.


----------



## kev994 (19 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> And…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh right, I forgot about that solution looking for a problem. They’re finding work for them, but the way it rolled out seemed a little… odd.


----------



## markppcli (19 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> And…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jesus, literally a GD trade


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (19 Oct 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> How did we guard the nuclear weapons back in the day? Was it an MP role, or did the US provide the force protection along with the USAF Ordnance detachments?


My understanding was the US provided FP to safeguard the weapons. Canada was and still is part of the Treaty on the Non-Profilerstion of Nuclear Weapons.


----------



## lenaitch (19 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> agreed
> 
> I would suggest the CAF hire the RCMP for Contract Policing on posts, you would not need a lot of them at each base anyway.
> But if you want a standard of enforcement etc, that is the only way to get it - you won't get that from Local LE
> ...


[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that scenario would require numbers of RCMP (plus their own infrastructure and support) in jurisdictions where they don't current police, or do police but not in sufficient numbers.  Any Base in Ontario and Quebec, Halifax, and possibly Esquimalt and Winnipeg come to mind.  It's a little different than add one or two more members to a detachment that is already in place.


----------



## FJAG (19 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Edited to add the Wisconsin base - pretty close to Winnipeg.


If you want close to Winnipeg then Minot North Dakota is your spot. Considering its strategic importance, it's also a prime target.



Ostrozac said:


> How did we guard the nuclear weapons back in the day? Was it an MP role, or did the US provide the force protection along with the USAF Ordnance detachments?


Very specialized US Nuclear Custodial Units. They existed not only for the various RCAF systems we had but also the Army's Honest Johns.

🍻


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Oct 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> How did we guard the nuclear weapons back in the day? Was it an MP role, or did the US provide the force protection along with the USAF Ordnance detachments?



This from a Linkedin page


> Commissioned in 1969. Served as Nuclear Security Officer in command of 53 Military Policemen at 446 Surface to Air Missile Squadron (SAM) at North Bay Ontario.





			North Bay, ON Photos


----------



## markppcli (19 Oct 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> This from a Linkedin page
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice to see he had time for a second job when he wasn’t chasing the Dukes of Hazard around.


----------



## kev994 (20 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Jesus, literally a GD trade


Yeah, when it rolled out the units literally got emails saying ‘we got you this new trade, what can they do?’ . I would have expected it to be done the other way around. They’ve been quite helpful, just seems like an odd way to implement it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Jesus, literally a GD trade



Yup.  I worked with a RCN LogO who went Air Ops O.  Next to RCAF food services officer I'm not sure which one seems like a better go.

RCAF techs don't like to do anything other than tech stuff.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> Oh right, I forgot about that solution looking for a problem. They’re finding work for them, but the way it rolled out seemed a little… odd.



Not surprised, the CAF way is “decent to great idea, poor to very poor implementation”. 

I am not sure if we have any on our Wing yet.  AOO is on the go.  

I thought they should have made the NCM one a Reg trade as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Not surprise, the CAF way is “decent to great idea, poor to very poor implementation”.
> 
> I am not sure if we have any on our Wing yet.  AOO is on the go.
> 
> I thought they should have made the NCM one a Reg trade as well.



I didn't know it was a reserve only job.  Interesting.


----------



## FSTO (20 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> If you want close to Winnipeg then Minot North Dakota is your spot. Considering its strategic importance, it's also a prime target.
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


Grand Forks SAC AFB is straight south of Winnipeg, Minot is south of Brandon.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2022)

markppcli said:


> Jesus, literally a GD trade



GD but ones that require some knowledge and trg and keep aircraft flying.  Towing aircraft is a little different than hooking up to a water buffalo and driving off.  

The duties listed are all important ones that need to be done, and ones that take techs away from their primary trade duties.  There is a critical shortage of techs across the RCAF;  I’m all for this trade but make it Reg force and sufficient PML.

Leave the AVN, AVS, ACS, and AWS folks focused on their important work that keeps serviceable aircraft on the line.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> If you want close to Winnipeg then Minot North Dakota is your spot. Considering its strategic importance, it's also a prime target.


Except there is no facilities to house F-35 in Minot.  The infrastructure requirements for F-35 are extremely stringent. 

I would not be surprised, if we continue on the F-35 route, that the first couple of aircraft would go to a US base to pool with allied nations for conversion training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I didn't know it was a reserve only job.  Interesting.



I guess they thought there’s enough techs looking for Res positions to stay geo to fill it initially?  

🤷‍♂️


----------



## FJAG (20 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> Grand Forks SAC AFB is straight south of Winnipeg, Minot is south of Brandon.


Senior's moment considering that I lived in Brandon for thirty years and my kid went to university in Grand Forks for one.

😖


----------



## Quirky (20 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I guess they thought there’s enough techs looking for Res positions to stay geo to fill it initially?
> 
> 🤷‍♂️



Laughable thought to think people who retire/release and stay in cold lake will want to come back into the hell they left, with lower pay, crappier duties and be the punching bags of the AMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> Laughable thought to think people who retire/release and stay in cold lake will want to come back into the hell they left, with lower pay, crappier duties and be the punching bags of the AMO.



That’s just a WAG on my part.  I have no idea what the plan was.  Or, if there actually was one.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Except there is no facilities to house F-35 in Minot.  The infrastructure requirements for F-35 are extremely stringent.
> 
> I would not be surprised, if we continue on the F-35 route, that the first couple of aircraft would go to a US base to pool with allied nations for conversion training.


Entirely reasonable way to get pers trained while finishing infra.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> GD but ones that require some knowledge and trg and keep aircraft flying.  Towing aircraft is a little different than hooking up to a water buffalo and driving off.
> 
> The duties listed are all important ones that need to be done, and ones that take techs away from their primary trade duties.  There is a critical shortage of techs across the RCAF;  I’m all for this trade but make it Reg force and sufficient PML.
> 
> Leave the AVN, AVS, ACS, and AWS folks focused on their important work that keeps serviceable aircraft on the line.



Air Force version of the Bos'n's trade?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> If you want close to Winnipeg then Minot North Dakota is your spot. Considering its strategic importance, it's also a prime target.
> 
> 
> Very specialized US Nuclear Custodial Units. They existed not only for the various RCAF systems we had but also the Army's Honest Johns.
> ...


Actually one of our RSS staff had been on that duty guarding the nukes in Comox for a posting, he was artillery.


----------



## FJAG (20 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Actually one of our RSS staff had been on that duty guarding the nukes in Comox for a posting, he was artillery.


I think that there is a key difference between the US custodians who were/are responsible in all respects for the security of the weapons and their release to the allied nation under the authority of the US authorities and allied nations who provided additional security to the facilities. During the Cold War the US had nuclear weapons and custodial units with a number of NATO nations who had nuclear capable delivery systems (or for that matter nuclear demolitions)

🍻


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I think that there is a key difference between the US custodians who were/are responsible in all respects for the security of the weapons and their release to the allied nation under the authority of the US authorities and allied nations who provided additional security to the facilities. During the Cold War the US had nuclear weapons and custodial units with a number of NATO nations who had nuclear capable delivery systems (or for that matter nuclear demolitions)
> 
> 🍻


I have to agree. There is alot of confusion on this point. I was once posted to Chatham NB (mind you, well after the nukes were gone).

As I understood things the USAF had a nuclear weapons security detachment in Chatham that had care and custody of the Genie missiles until they were loaded on the Voodoos (i don’t think a live Genie was ever loaded in Canada, but could be wrong).

Outside of that, there was a robust Canadian security force (by our standards, anyway) protecting the base and the perimeter of the weapons storage area).


----------



## quadrapiper (20 Oct 2022)

For the MPs, time for a split within the trade? Betting there's enough overlap within all of the domestic tasks that maintaining some commonality would make sense, but perhaps not everyone needs to be fully developed in the base constabulary context. Run everyone through the same common initial trades training, then select from there?

Probably missing something, but there's base constabulary / provost / guardhouse work, close protection, airfield security, higher level investigative tasks (NIS), wartime tasks for land ops, and non-environment specific base defence / security. No idea which of those should be a trade, which should be analogous to the current close protection qual, and which should just be distinctly staffed units.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I think that there is a key difference between the US custodians who were/are responsible in all respects for the security of the weapons and their release to the allied nation under the authority of the US authorities and allied nations who provided additional security to the facilities. During the Cold War the US had nuclear weapons and custodial units with a number of NATO nations who had nuclear capable delivery systems (or for that matter nuclear demolitions)
> 
> 🍻


Here is a bit about that ... I was I another part of 4CMBG in the 1960s but, in 1969, I was in HQ4CMBG and the article rings true with my (hazy) memories of who was where.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> Here is a bit about that ... I was I another part of 4CMBG in the 1960s but, in 1969, I was in HQ4CMBG and the article rings true with my (hazy) memories of who was where.



I had no idea about any of this, being born in ‘70 myself and all. Tks for this article and website!


----------



## FJAG (20 Oct 2022)

There's another article - about the Voodoos here.

I know they flew them until 1984 and I think they carried the Genies right up until the end. I was up in Bagotville on an ACO course in the early 1970s and saw them there at the time.

🍻


----------



## childs56 (20 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> GD but ones that require some knowledge and trg and keep aircraft flying.  Towing aircraft is a little different than hooking up to a water buffalo and driving off.
> 
> The duties listed are all important ones that need to be done, and ones that take techs away from their primary trade duties.  There is a critical shortage of techs across the RCAF;  I’m all for this trade but make it Reg force and sufficient PML.
> 
> Leave the AVN, AVS, ACS, and AWS folks focused on their important work that keeps serviceable aircraft on the line.


I liked doing those others duties, like marshaling Aircraft, refueling them, changing tires etc. It broke up the day.  But it could be a pain if you were close to fixing a Jet and being called away to launch a jet because you were available.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Oct 2022)

Other organizations are having similar challenges keeping and finding people, but they don't have to follow the same (strict, outdated) rules as the CAF:

Employers look for new ways to recruit as aging workers contribute to ongoing labour shortage​
Known for attracting older workers on the retail side, Lee Valley had seen a wave of retirements during COVID-19. But with demand up for its products as people embraced hobbies like gardening and woodworking during the pandemic, president and COO Jason Tasse initially resorted to hiring members of a local lacrosse team he coaches to fill orders.

As restrictions lifted, the company decided on a long-term strategy. They would pay more, offer better benefits, increase flexibility around shifts and invest in training those whose skills were not yet developed in the areas required. 

"We abandoned most traditional hiring practices and protocols," said Tasse. In the past, they would tell prospective employees what kind of schedule to expect, along with requiring specific skills and references. Now, Tasse said, "all of that was out the window."

Similar conversations are happening at organizations across Canada, according to Bank of Montreal senior economist Robert Kavcic, with companies in many sectors reworking their hiring practices as they face high post-lockdown demand for services and a tight labour market. 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/aging-workforce-labour-hiring-practices-1.6619256


----------



## FJAG (24 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Other organizations are having similar challenges keeping and finding people, but they don't have to follow the same (strict, outdated) rules as the CAF:
> 
> Employers look for new ways to recruit as aging workers contribute to ongoing labour shortage​
> Known for attracting older workers on the retail side, Lee Valley had seen a wave of retirements during COVID-19. But with demand up for its products as people embraced hobbies like gardening and woodworking during the pandemic, president and COO Jason Tasse initially resorted to hiring members of a local lacrosse team he coaches to fill orders.
> ...


I can see where a percentage of older workers who had reached retirement age and didn't need to work but stayed in the workforce for reasons other than a paycheck might be hanging back from risking their health, but there must be a glut of younger folks who need the money who also seem to be staying away. How do they manage to make ends meet without a job? Not everyone can succeed as an internet influencer.


----------



## Furniture (24 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I can see where a percentage of older workers who had reached retirement age and didn't need to work but stayed in the workforce for reasons other than a paycheck might be hanging back from risking their health, but there must be a glut of younger folks who need the money who also seem to be staying away. How do they manage to make ends meet without a job? Not everyone can succeed as an internet influencer.


A lot of the younger folks are staying at home with the parents, working part time jobs at best. 

If you can get by comfortably doing part-time work while having mommy and daddy pay for your living expenses, why would you ever bother getting a "real" job?


----------



## CountDC (24 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I can see where a percentage of older workers who had reached retirement age and didn't need to work but stayed in the workforce for reasons other than a paycheck might be hanging back from risking their health, but there must be a glut of younger folks who need the money who also seem to be staying away. How do they manage to make ends meet without a job? Not everyone can succeed as an internet influencer.


It's called bank of Mommy and Daddy.


----------



## QV (24 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I can see where a percentage of older workers who had reached retirement age and didn't need to work but stayed in the workforce for reasons other than a paycheck might be hanging back from risking their health, but there must be a glut of younger folks who need the money who also seem to be staying away. How do they manage to make ends meet without a job? Not everyone can succeed as an internet influencer.


I know people who live off of government subsidies and handouts of several types. No real career or employment, just a little under-the-table work here and there, and mostly free money. They aren't living extravagantly but their lazy asses can definitely get by, and they have a lot of free time.


----------



## mariomike (24 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Employers look for new ways to recruit as aging workers contribute to ongoing labour shortage​



Toronto Water hiring due to "Baby Boomer" retirements. 



> Ensures over 3.6 million residents and businesses in Toronto, and portions of York and Peel have access to safe drinking water, safely treated wastewater and stormwater management.







I knew some guys got sent there. The "Water Palaces" were exactly that. The sewage treatment plants, not so much. 🤮
Luck of the draw where they sent you. Helped if you knew somebody in the union.




> Other organizations are having similar challenges keeping and finding people, but they don't have to follow the same (strict, outdated) rules as the CAF



Some may consider this "strict, outdated" compared to the CAF, 



> All City of Toronto employees are required to be fully vaccinated as a condition of hire in accordance with the City's Mandatory Vaccination Policy. Candidates will be required to show proof of vaccination during the recruitment process.






FJAG said:


> I can see where a percentage of older workers who had reached retirement age and didn't need to work but stayed in the workforce for reasons other than a paycheck might be hanging back from risking their health,


I'm a loafer by nature, so I bailed out when my pension maxed out.

But, if I was inclined, which I am not, to take a post-retirement job, I would go with this one. 





						Transit Operator Drivers Recruitment
					






					www.ttc.ca
				




I drove buses around the city in my pre-retirement job, so this would sort of be like a "busman's holiday".


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> A lot of the younger folks are staying at home with the parents, working part time jobs at best.
> 
> If you can get by comfortably doing part-time work while having mommy and daddy pay for your living expenses, why would you ever bother getting a "real" job?




Kind of ish.   As a parent of two younger adults living at home I can attest that we are having to look at how we do things.   

One of the kids is an accredited RN graduate, fully paid up, but can't get on the hiring ladder.   The market is looking for experienced part time nurses.  The traditional employers are not taking on full time employees.   They are hiring contract nurses.  And the market is swamped with ex-full timers with tons of experience happy to take high paying, short time contracts that offer them mobility.  That leaves handing out pills and changing bandages in old folks homes for the youngsters.   She is making ends meet like every other youngster.  Starbucks.

The other is a Civil Engineer Technician that went back to school to get his P Eng Ring and then decided that GIS was more his speed.  So he is taking courses and hoping for a long term gig he can base a future on.

It ain't the kids.  It's the economy.  A lot of people are struggling with this gig economy - working contract to contract and constantly having to re-invent themselves to meet the needs of the market, writing resumes is the least of it. 

If you don't know where your next paycheck is coming from it gets real difficult to be optimistic about the future.  And taking out a mortgage is an expression of optimism.   So is getting married and having kids.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Oct 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Imagine trying to order civilians to work overseas.


Easy… 





Humphrey Bogart said:


> Petawawa was great for Friday night benders.  Roll out of work at 1400 on Friday and start drinking at the mess with the boys!  Those were the days!


Army always leaving work early on a Friday…I think you’ll recall how hard I worked on Friday afternoons to ensure security through aerial security ops around the Mess to kick off TGIF, then after a full work day (and sand/leaf blasting the grunts and their beers 😉), come by the Mess to adoration and applause…



Eye In The Sky said:


> Comox. Esquimalt/Pat Bay. Trenton was trending high enough I became disinterested in MAISR.


Well that, and MAISR coming online in 20??… 😉 




Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup I agree. But we don’t have “services” right now we have a single service. People don’t “join the RCN/RCAF”, they join the CAF.


Legally perhaps, but I think most people joining up think of Army, Navy or Air Force…even the purple trades are seen as one of the services.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Oct 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Imagine trying to order civilians to work overseas.





















For enough money, you can get anyone to do anything 😉

Private Civilians fighting wars isn't an anomaly, it was actually the norm up until about 250-300 years ago.  Large standing Armies controlled by Nation States is a relatively new concept.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> View attachment 74429
> 
> For enough money, you can get anyone to do anything 😉
> 
> Private Civilians fighting wars isn't an anomaly, it was actually the norm up until about 250-300 years ago.  Large standing Armies controlled by Nation States is a relatively new concept.


Honestly it only really took a back foot in the West when it became socially inappropriate to fight for Apartheid Regimes in Africa...
   Working in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Security Contractor - one met all sorts of folks who had been mercenaries in Africa fighting actual wars, as well as folks who did Security at Diamond Mines etc.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2022)

"Gig" economy also wasn't an anomaly.  Different year, different mine/forestry camp...


----------



## Furniture (24 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Kind of ish.   As a parent of two younger adults living at home I can attest that we are having to look at how we do things.
> 
> One of the kids is an accredited RN graduate, fully paid up, but can't get on the hiring ladder.   The market is looking for experienced part time nurses.  The traditional employers are not taking on full time employees.   They are hiring contract nurses.  And the market is swamped with ex-full timers with tons of experience happy to take high paying, short time contracts that offer them mobility.  That leaves handing out pills and changing bandages in old folks homes for the youngsters.   She is making ends meet like every other youngster.  Starbucks.
> 
> ...


Not everyone staying at home is being lazy, but not everyone staying at home is a RN either. 

Nursing is in such a bad state from what I understand that they essentially need to blow-up the entire system and rebuild it in a way that makes sense.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly it only really took a back foot in the West when it became socially inappropriate to fight for Apartheid Regimes in Africa...
> Working in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Security Contractor - one met all sorts of folks who had been mercenaries in Africa fighting actual wars, as well as folks who did Security at Diamond Mines etc.


I know of a couple of retired Canucks who cut their teeth fighting in a number of bush wars in Africa in the 90s.  

One of them is the Father of one of my mates I grew up with.  Spent time in Rwanda and when the opportunity to go private came up, he jumped at the chance.  Besides they were paying waaaayyy more than his meagre CAF WO's salary back then.  

His son was in the Reserves with me and he took a year off school to go work with his father in Africa to "see if he really wanted to do soldiering full time".  Came home with a bucket full of money, paid for his schooling, bought a car with cash.  

Serves in the Reg Force now 😉

The money isn't as good now as it was then, the market is oversaturated.


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I know of a couple of retired Canucks who cut their teeth fighting in a number of bush wars in Africa in the 90s.


Me too - small world 


Humphrey Bogart said:


> The money isn't as good now as it was then, the market is oversaturated.


There is still good money to be had, but the early GWOT days where the heyday of the overpaid security contractor.
  You can still find $750+ a day gigs in Security, but you need a good resume, or there are still some that you need to have zero moral compass.


----------



## CBH99 (24 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> I know people who live off of government subsidies and handouts of several types. No real career or employment, just a little under-the-table work here and there, and mostly free money. They aren't living extravagantly but their lazy asses can definitely get by, and they have a lot of free time.


I know a few of these types too.  We’re around the same age, and the few I know that do the welfare/handout lifestyle were raised that way by their parents.  

I know 2 young ladies, both late 20’s.  Neither of them are handicapped or disabled, and both are professional looking, articulate, and can do anything just as well as the rest of us…

…Both of them are on AISH.  Why?  Their parents put them on it from a young age, and because AISH is for life, they still get over $1000 a month from the province of Alberta.  

Undrr fairly recent guidelines issued from the province, if someone gets addicted to ‘down’ (smoking heroine) they automatically qualify for AISH.  😕🤷🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Oct 2022)

The 'Retired Big Cod' has spoken 









						Military recruiting issues may be ‘more serious’ than senior ranks letting on: Hillier - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Until the recruitment issue is addressed, the Canadian Forces will continue to be "in a huge amount of trouble," retired Gen. Rick Hillier warned.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I know of a couple of retired Canucks who cut their teeth fighting in a number of bush wars in Africa in the 90s.
> 
> One of them is the Father of one of my mates I grew up with.  Spent time in Rwanda and when the opportunity to go private came up, he jumped at the chance.  Besides they were paying waaaayyy more than his meagre CAF WO's salary back then.
> 
> ...


There were quite a few back in the 80's from the Rhodesian and South African Bush wars as well.


----------



## kev994 (24 Oct 2022)

FJAG said:


> I can see where a percentage of older workers who had reached retirement age and didn't need to work but stayed in the workforce for reasons other than a paycheck might be hanging back from risking their health, but there must be a glut of younger folks who need the money who also seem to be staying away. How do they manage to make ends meet without a job? Not everyone can succeed as an internet influencer.


We’ve known this was coming for decades and it’s only just begun. Here’s a chart showing the number of people in Australia turning 65 because I’m too lazy to find one for Canada.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Oct 2022)

Bit of a sidebar, but can anyone point me to where I can find the recruiting numbers for any given year?

I've seen recruiting numbers on annual CM briefs, but not sure what the source document is. Curious what the annual intake is at a CAF level.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> The 'Retired Big Cod' has spoken
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm glad he called them out. The 10% short is crazy; I haven't seen too many trades that are over 80%, and a number at 70% (and falling). Maybe we have a huge swath of unqualified people somewhere, but huge shortages of experienced people has been the norm for a while, and people are getting their PO2s in the same time as they would have gotten PLQ even 10 years ago, so they just don't have the time in rank turning wrenches . That's all cumulative, and means that each succeeding generation has less experience.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Bit of a sidebar, but can anyone point me to where I can find the recruiting numbers for any given year?
> 
> I've seen recruiting numbers on annual CM briefs, but not sure what the source document is. Curious what the annual intake is at a CAF level.


The MCS dashboard (DWAN only) has some info.


----------



## Furniture (24 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm glad he called them out. The 10% short is crazy; I haven't seen too many trades that are over 80%, and a number at 70% (and falling). Maybe we have a huge swath of unqualified people somewhere, but huge shortages of experienced people has been the norm for a while, and people are getting their PO2s in the same time as they would have gotten PLQ even 10 years ago, so they just don't have the time in rank turning wrenches . That's all cumulative, and means that each succeeding generation has less experience.


I know that my trade is leaving multiple Sgt/PO2 and MCpl/MS billets open for that reason. We are also not filling at least one WO/PO 1 and one MWO/CPO 2 billet, not because the people aren't ready at that level, but we need them at their current rank. 

The best thing that could have happened to me was spending 8 years as a Sgt. My promotion to WO was the first time I actually felt confident I was ready for my new rank/position.


----------



## lenaitch (24 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> For enough money, you can get anyone to do anything 😉
> 
> Private Civilians fighting wars isn't an anomaly, it was actually the norm up until about 250-300 years ago.  Large standing Armies controlled by Nation States is a relatively new concept.


Considered in the context of that discussion, civilianizing skills/trades/professions necessary to support overseas operations have the potential to run up against all sorts of occupational health and safety concerns and terms of employment intervention.  I suppose there will always be people available as contractors, mercenaries, legionnaires, etc. for the pointy end of the stick stuff that probably pays relatively well.  I would imagine less so for the person you need to fix the truck.

As well, it's one thing with contractors where the government or agency that hires them enjoys a fair degree of distance or detachment; not so much when the people are employees.  Would the Government of Canada be willing to be constantly beholden to contractors?  That would seem to imply that contract managers, compliance audits, etc. would have to be deployed as well.


----------



## lenaitch (24 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Other organizations are having similar challenges keeping and finding people, but they don't have to follow the same (strict, outdated) rules as the CAF:
> 
> Employers look for new ways to recruit as aging workers contribute to ongoing labour shortage​
> Known for attracting older workers on the retail side, Lee Valley had seen a wave of retirements during COVID-19. But with demand up for its products as people embraced hobbies like gardening and woodworking during the pandemic, president and COO Jason Tasse initially resorted to hiring members of a local lacrosse team he coaches to fill orders.
> ...


I have noticed that at Lee Valley.  The staff used to skew older and male - I always assumed they were either ex-trades or at least knowledgeable hobbyists.  I've seen many more young female staff.  I don't think I've ever seen a grumpy Lee Valley employee.

Employers need to get back to being willing to train new hires.  The entire world can't continue expect everybody that walks through the door comes packaged with work experience.  I remember when Home Depot first broke into Canada.  A lot of their floor staff were either ex-trades or at least knowledgeable in their department.   I hardly see any of that anymore.  I've overheard comments and advice from staff that was downright dangerous.  


mariomike said:


> I'm a loafer by nature, so I bailed out when my pension maxed out.
> 
> But, if I was inclined, which I am not, to take a post-retirement job, I would go with this one.
> 
> ...


I stayed a year over first opportunity (age+service+80)  (our pension doesn't max out).  Spare time was a little limited since we had previously bought a century farm for our horses, and did nothing but work on that for the first year.

Sometimes it's an opportunity to do something you enjoy, or want to do just for the heck of it.  I had two post-retirement gigs.  The first was driving for a shuttle service to Pearson airport.  The money was 'ok' (tips could be good) but it was fairly mindless.  I could pick my own days and enjoy driving so it was a decent fit.  The other was an investigator for a government agency.  The money was much better and I got to exercise some things I used to do but I didn't have to care about all the internal BS - just pick up my files and do my thing.


----------



## Fabius (24 Oct 2022)

In terms of the SIP, numbers for the Army are available on the CA HQ ACIMS page in the briefs at the last Army Council. 
Overall interesting breakdown between authorized intake, expected actual intake and expected releases over the next year.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Oct 2022)

Just sat through yet another brief on this shit recently. Honestly it's just the same old crap.

There are big challenges you're facing and you're going to have to sacrifice more than ever.
The chain of command is listening. They're coming up with plans to fix everything. We can't tell you what those plans are, but they're listening to you.
You're mentoring tomorrows leaders. They're looking to you to lead them and mentor them.
"Show what right looks like"
This is a process
yadda yadda - make sure you do the newest training about respect, everyone read Trusted to Serve.



I'm not sure where I read it but I recall seeing something about new selection boards for promotion will have 1x board member who is a member of the LGBTQT2S+ community or something that seemed to indicate be a minority (can't recall the phrase). Sure, that's cool. We took away saying he and she on PERs to use gender neutral language. It was explained that this was to essentially avoid someone seeing someone was a female and treating them unfairly. Okay, so for the new PACE system are we going to specifically identify that someone is LGBTQT2S+ or a minority at the selection boards? I don't really see how having a 1x sitting board member from these communities will effect change unless members have an intersectionality score.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Just sat through yet another brief on this shit recently. Honestly it's just the same old crap.
> 
> There are big challenges you're facing and you're going to have to sacrifice more than ever.
> The chain of command is listening. They're coming up with plans to fix everything. We can't tell you what those plans are, but they're listening to you.
> ...


I couldn't bear selling my soul for that steaming pile of dog poo.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Just sat through yet another brief on this shit recently. Honestly it's just the same old crap.
> 
> There are big challenges you're facing and you're going to have to sacrifice more than ever.
> The chain of command is listening. They're coming up with plans to fix everything. We can't tell you what those plans are, but they're listening to you.
> ...



Oh FFS....


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2022)

"Trusted to Serve"

Apparently that trust is limited if selection boards have to have minority komissars.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (24 Oct 2022)

Optics. 

You can't be discriminatory if the selection process includes someone in a marginalized group, right?

It's like the PAO telling Photo Techs to focus on getting shots that highlight our diversity; mainly by hounding one of the 3 females at an event, or searching for the elusive Sikh or Muslim soldier to plaster all over promotional items. 

I would hate to be tasked with sitting on a board soley because I provide some form of credibility to a process deemed biased. You're no longer there on your own merits.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Considered in the context of that discussion, civilianizing skills/trades/professions necessary to support overseas operations have the potential to run up against all sorts of occupational health and safety concerns and terms of employment intervention.  I suppose there will always be people available as contractors, mercenaries, legionnaires, etc. for the pointy end of the stick stuff that probably pays relatively well.  I would imagine less so for the person you need to fix the truck.
> 
> As well, it's one thing with contractors where the government or agency that hires them enjoys a fair degree of distance or detachment; not so much when the people are employees.  Would the Government of Canada be willing to be constantly beholden to contractors?  That would seem to imply that contract managers, compliance audits, etc. would have to be deployed as well.











						Afghan forces will be gutted without U.S. contractors to fix planes
					

The loss of U.S. contractors could trigger a game-changing shift in the military balance between the Taliban and the Afghan government.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




All that high tech gear that the US left to the Taliban wasn't being maintained by ANA/ANG/ANP technicians.

And KBR will find people for anything.









						KBR Is looking for drivers to go Iraq then Afghanistan
					

KBR NEEDS YOU!!!  Recently KBR was awarded the LOGCAP V contract along with three other government contractors.  So for all of you drivers out there...




					www.thetruckersreport.com
				











						Iraq convoy was sent out despite threat
					

Unarmored trucks carrying needed supplies were ambushed, leaving six drivers dead. Records illuminate the fateful decision.




					www.latimes.com
				




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/s471j


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2022)

The problem is the lie that one person can speak for a group without personal bias.  All the people on any kind of board should be there because their decision making chops suit the decision to be made or recommended.  No "junior" memberships.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I know of a couple of retired Canucks who cut their teeth fighting in a number of bush wars in Africa in the 90s.
> 
> One of them is the Father of one of my mates I grew up with.  Spent time in Rwanda and when the opportunity to go private came up, he jumped at the chance.  Besides they were paying waaaayyy more than his meagre CAF WO's salary back then.
> 
> ...



There is a you tuber out there who is/was a PM Contractor. Good channel, I especially liked his videos on how to get a job in that world.  He holds punches about people and their military experience.  And according to him, unless you're a top end operator don't expect much. 

I will see if I can find his channel again. 



Furniture said:


> I know that my trade is leaving multiple Sgt/PO2 and MCpl/MS billets open for that reason. We are also not filling at least one WO/PO 1 and one MWO/CPO 2 billet, not because the people aren't ready at that level, but we need them at their current rank.
> 
> The best thing that could have happened to me was spending 8 years as a Sgt. My promotion to WO was the first time I actually felt confident I was ready for my new rank/position.



For me it was the 7 or 8 years I spent at LS.  I needed some maturing.  Like a fine wine


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Just sat through yet another brief on this shit recently. Honestly it's just the same old crap.
> 
> There are big challenges you're facing and you're going to have to sacrifice more than ever.
> The chain of command is listening. They're coming up with plans to fix everything. We can't tell you what those plans are, but they're listening to you.
> ...



I asked the question about the “Defence advisory group member” on selection boards; “if there is non identifying info on the mbr other than their  name, rank trade and scoring info, what bias is being avoided exactly”.

There was no answer given.


----------



## Weinie (25 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> There is a you tuber out there who is/was a PM Contractor. Good channel, I especially liked his videos on how to get a job in that world.  He holds punches about people and their military experience.  And according to him, unless you're a top end operator don't expect much.
> 
> I will see if I can find his channel again.
> 
> ...


I was accelerated promoted to Cpl. Went OCTP and then spent ten years as a Captain. Then spent 12 years as a Major, before getting promoted. My crime: I didn't have a degree and I wasn't bilingue.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Oct 2022)

Don't be modest, I'm certain there were many other crimes along the way


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> I was accelerated promoted to Cpl. Went OCTP and then spent ten years as a Captain. Then spent 12 years as a Major, before getting promoted. My crime: I didn't have a degree and I wasn't bilingue.



Sounds like you are an excellent vintage


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I asked the question about the “Defence advisory group member” on selection boards; “if there is non identifying info on the mbr other than their  name, rank trade and scoring info, what bias is being avoided exactly”.
> 
> There was no answer given.


When they pull garbage like this, I personally hope the CAF continues to struggle for it.

Reap what you sow 😉


----------



## Weinie (25 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Don't be modest, I'm certain there were many other crimes along the way


"Sheepish" I didn't brush my teeth as much as the Canadian Dental Association says that I should.


----------



## KevinB (25 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> When they pull garbage like this, I personally hope the CAF continues to struggle for it.
> 
> Reap what you sow 😉


I doubt there will be a correction to the force, until there is an active war and Canadians are dying again.
   Which is sad and unnecessary, but...


----------



## Weinie (25 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I doubt there will be a correction to the force, until there is an active war and Canadians are dying again.
> Which is sad and unnecessary, but...


You are 100% correct Kev.

Canadians (and North Americans/Europeans) rarely get involved, in anything,  unless they are actively impacted.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I doubt there will be a correction to the force, until there is an active war and Canadians are dying again.
> Which is sad and unnecessary, but...


Agree 100%.  They are stuck on this trajectory for the foreseeable future.  

I think the CAF needs a catastrophic failure at this point to come to its senses.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I asked the question about the “Defence advisory group member” on selection boards; “if there is non identifying info on the mbr other than their  name, rank trade and scoring info, what bias is being avoided exactly”.
> 
> There was no answer given.


I just came back from promotion boards and even without a non-affiliated member the scoring of the files was pretty comparable across the board.

With the PARs in PACE, there is just a wall of scoring criteria and a tweet at the end to summarize the year's performance. There was no SCRIT for the trades doing the pilot, but think it will be really hard to have guidelines on how to score things based on the narrative. Things like second language, range of experience, deployements and instructor/leadership positions will really take the front seat in differentiating files.

edit to clarify: there was no scrit available ahead of time for people writing PARs; no idea what they did for the promotion boards that had PERs/PAR for this recent year.


----------



## Weinie (25 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Agree 100%.  They are stuck on this trajectory for the foreseeable future.
> 
> *I think the CAF needs a catastrophic failure at this point to come to its senses.*


It won't come to it's senses. Should a catastrophic failure happen in the CAF, it will be a cacophony of finger-pointing amongst fed departments, political parties, and pundits, which the ravenous media will seize on. (especially during the Inquiry) Until the next "SQUIRREL"


----------



## KevinB (25 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> It won't come to it's senses. Should a catastrophic failure happen in the CAF, it will be a cacophony of finger-pointing amongst fed departments, political parties, and pundits, which the ravenous media will seize on. (especially during the Inquiry) Until the next "SQUIRREL"


Depends on the level of catastrophe.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Oct 2022)

The Ukranians had a catastrophic failure in 2013.  They lived with that for 8 years.  They had another on February 24th.  That has motivated them.  They are outperforming everyone's expectations.

The Russians are in the midst of a catastrophic failure.  It remains to be seen the effect of that failure.

One thing that is being demonstrated is that "one volunteer is worth a thousand conscripts".  A volunteer in this case being someone whose heart is in the cause - not just there for the paycheck.


----------



## Weinie (25 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Depends on the level of catastrophe.


You seriously underestimate the level of woke/aggrieved/waiting to be offended people in Canada. Sigh.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> Depends on the level of catastrophe.



Wait.... this stuff doesn't classify as a catastrophe? I must have missed something.









						It's time CAF cedes more control to civilian authorities on sexual offences: Arbour
					

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has been 'unwilling' and 'unable' to embrace action on military sexual harassment and assault and it's time the body cedes more control to civilian authorities, former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour says.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## mariomike (25 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I stayed a year over first opportunity (age+service+80)  (our pension doesn't max out).  Spare time was a little limited since we had previously bought a century farm for our horses, and did nothing but work on that for the first year.
> 
> Sometimes it's an opportunity to do something you enjoy, or want to do just for the heck of it.  I had two post-retirement gigs.  The first was driving for a shuttle service to Pearson airport.  The money was 'ok' (tips could be good) but it was fairly mindless.  I could pick my own days and enjoy driving so it was a decent fit.  The other was an investigator for a government agency.  The money was much better and I got to exercise some things I used to do but I didn't have to care about all the internal BS - just pick up my files and do my thing.



I wonder if certain occupations - like the CAF, police and emergency services - overlook the psychological impact of retirement.

If members miss the sense of identity, meaning and purpose that came with the job. Isn't that at least one of the reasons they joined?

I didn't really like some of the guys back then. But, now, at the luncheons, I love every one of them. Especially those no longer with us.

Life can be funny that way. 

Perhaps retired CAF members feel the same way?



> I didn't have to care about all the internal BS - just pick up my files and do my thing.



Fortunately, I was just a plebe. They didn't expect much, and that's what they got. Tones go off. Doors go up. Wheels rolling. Simple as that.


----------



## KevinB (25 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> You seriously underestimate the level of woke/aggrieved/waiting to be offended people in Canada. Sigh.


I suspect that even that has a limit.  
  If the allegations of Russian interference in both the DFW airport GPS navigation and sub seas internet cables are true - when a few planes crash in Canada and folks can’t stream their favorite shows the Gov will be forced to act.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2022)

KevinB said:


> I doubt there will be a correction to the force, until there is an active war and Canadians are dying again.
> Which is sad and unnecessary, but...


The CAF faced that 20 years ago  - and it seems the lessons learned are lost on today's CAF.


----------



## lenaitch (25 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> I wonder if certain occupations - like the CAF, police and emergency services - overlook the psychological impact of retirement.
> 
> If members miss the sense of identity, meaning and purpose that came with the job. Isn't that at least one of the reasons they joined?
> 
> ...


I miss the monkeys (well, most of them, there were some I didn't like then and still don't) - but not the circus.

The hardest impact I saw was with folks who either didn't have a personal plan or who had so totally botched their finances and personal life (too many ex-spouses) that retirement scared them.  I knew of one member, years ago, who became so despondent with his upcoming retirement that they had to take his weapon and he went on sick leave.

Our Association runs voluntary pre-retirement seminars for both the member and partner and they are quite successful.  The one aspect they repeat is the need for a plan.  It doesn't matter if it's making lawn whirly-gigs in the shop, but something to get you out of bed in the morning.  I suppose like many others, I've seen the gamut.  Some retire on Friday and start a new full-time job on Monday (never quite figured that out).  Some treat it as a new beginning (including, in some cases, a new spouse)  Some grow hair and buy a motorcycle.  Some try to parlay a hobby into an income (often unsuccessfully).  And on and on.  Some maintain ties through attending Vets. luncheons, others seem to be never heard from again.

I get the comradery, but I never felt law enforcement was some kind of special calling.   It was an honourable profession that, it you enjoyed and were good at it (or at least some aspect of it), it was rewarding but, if you hated it and only hung around for the money (too lazy to work, too honest to steal) it was a long haul.  No doubt, it can wear you down.  Like other emergency services, you get to see people at their very worst, but sometimes get to work with folks at their very best.  I suppose part of the comradery is talking to (reminiscing with?)  others who 'get it'.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> I wonder if certain occupations - like the CAF, police and emergency services - overlook the psychological impact of retirement.
> 
> If members miss the sense of identity, meaning and purpose that came with the job. Isn't that at least one of the reasons they joined?


There are stats that show men age 65 - 70 ish are suiciding at a greater rate. I will look into that


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Optics.
> 
> You can't be discriminatory if the selection process includes someone in a marginalized group, right?
> 
> ...





Eye In The Sky said:


> I asked the question about the “Defence advisory group member” on selection boards; “if there is non identifying info on the mbr other than their  name, rank trade and scoring info, what bias is being avoided exactly”.
> 
> There was no answer given.



Yea I don't get it. Like I can see the optics of "we're doing something!" angle but shouldn't we have a general somewhere that says "stop, this is stupid". 

Does CFTPO have data fields for race and sexuality?

"Can we get a gay Black or Asian-Canadian MWO please. Low-rank = bisexual."


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> I wonder if certain occupations - like the CAF, police and emergency services - overlook the psychological impact of retirement.
> 
> If members miss the sense of identity, meaning and purpose that came with the job. Isn't that at least one of the reasons they joined?
> 
> ...



The CAF is pretty clear that it doesn’t GAFF about retirees. That’s someone else’s job.

Unless, of course, senior CAF members (who you wouldn’t urinate on if they were aflame) ask you for a job and you can return the favour


----------



## Quirky (25 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm not sure where I read it but I recall seeing something about new selection boards for promotion will have 1x board member who is a member of the LGBTQT2S+ community



How does one join this community? Is there a fee that one pays like mess dues? What are the requirements for proof of membership?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (25 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> How does one join this community? Is there a fee that one pays like mess dues? What are the requirements for proof of membership?


Institutionalized discrimination and targeting over a 40 year period?


----------



## mariomike (25 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> The CAF is pretty clear that it doesn’t GAFF about retirees. That’s someone else’s job.



CAF retirees can join the Legion.

The association I belong to is for members who have served a minimum of 25 years on the department.

All service is full-time, as there are no part-timers.

You are presented with your gold watch, and quarter century lapel pin at your first meeting from the chief, or a deputy.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2022)

0/9... it's OK though, they're only Toons.

Ombuddy fires for effect 

Ombudsman slams military's treatment of injured reservists, rangers​

OTTAWA — Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman Gregory Lick is criticizing the military's treatment of ill and injured reservists and Canadian Rangers, saying the organization is failing to address long-standing gaps for Canada's part-time soldiers.

The gaps were first identified by the ombudsman's office during four separate investigations between 2015 and 2017, at which time the military promised to take action by implementing nine watchdog recommendations.

But in a new report released late Monday, the ombudsman’s office found that none of the nine recommendations have been fully implemented over the past five-plus years.

"Certainly, I'm disappointed that they haven't been able to action or make progress on all the recommendations," Lick said in an interview. 

"There are nine recommendations out of the four reports, and none have been fully implemented."

The report comes as the military is struggling with a personnel crisis, with about 10,000 vacancies across the Armed Forces — which represents about one position in 10. The shortage is particularly acute in the middle ranks.

The situation has become so dire that the chief of the defence staff, Gen. Wayne Eyre, issued a sweeping reconstitution order earlier this month making the recruitment and retention of personnel the military’s top priority.

Addressing the problems identified by his office would assist with those efforts, Lick said, particularly in the retention of experienced reservists and rangers who may otherwise hang up their uniforms because of untreated illnesses and injuries.

"If they wish to make movement and make great progress — which they need to — on reconstituting the Forces, the reserve force being a large elements of that, they have to get the foundation correct," Lick said.

"Making progress on our recommendations, that will make a greater, better foundation for moving ahead on reconstitution."

The ombudsman's previous studies identified gaps in reporting, treating and compensating illnesses and injuries suffered by reservists and rangers, who operate primarily in the North on a part-time basis, as a result of their military duties.

Those include a lack of followup after reservists are deployed on military tasks, excessive red tape in asking for assistance and compensation and issues with the military not communicating what help is available.

The update comes as many reservists are being asked to step up on missions both at home and abroad. That includes the recent deployment of about 700 part-time military personnel to Atlantic Canada after Hurricane Fiona.

Senior commanders spoke to the House of Commons defence committee last week about the impact the current shortage of full-time and part-time Armed Forces members is having on the military writ large.

"We're making difficult choices about what we can do for operations," said Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Eric Kenny. 

"We are consciously looking at what capabilities we’re privileging over others to make sure that we are not overstretching our members."









						Ombudsman slams military's treatment of injured reservists, rangers
					

OTTAWA — Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman Gregory Lick is criticizing the military's treatment of ill and injured reservists and Canadian Rangers, saying the organization is failing to address long-standing gaps for Canada's part-time soldiers.




					ottawa.citynews.ca


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Ombuddy fires for effect


One round blank ammunition, fire for effect!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Oct 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> One round blank ammunition, fire for effect!


Ombudsman rage has to occur at least once every election cycle.  It's a Canadian tradition.


----------



## Quirky (26 Oct 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Institutionalized discrimination and targeting over a 40 year period?



Sure.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I just came back from promotion boards and even without a non-affiliated member the scoring of the files was pretty comparable across the board.
> 
> With the PARs in PACE, there is just a wall of scoring criteria and a tweet at the end to summarize the year's performance. There was no SCRIT for the trades doing the pilot, but think it will be really hard to have guidelines on how to score things based on the narrative. Things like second language, range of experience, deployements and instructor/leadership positions will really take the front seat in differentiating files.
> 
> edit to clarify: there was no scrit available ahead of time for people writing PARs; no idea what they did for the promotion boards that had PERs/PAR for this recent year.



My trade has been on the pilot and has a SCRIT. 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Oct 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I miss the monkeys (well, most of them, there were some I didn't like then and still don't) - but not the circus.



This - this is where I am at and I’m not even retired yet.   

Since 2015 (when I was on impact and the fighters were pulled out, and a few other events happened) my GAFF has plummeted.   

I’ll miss the people but when I hand in my helmet bag for good, I won’t wake up my first day of freedom crying.  

I’m also picking up hobbies and stuff now so I have stuff to do in addition to driving Mrs EITS bonkers.  If postings are “what you make of it”, so is retirement.  

Don’t let the position you are in the CAF or wherever you earn your pay be your identity.   They don’t care about you nearly as much as you should care about yourself.


----------



## Weinie (26 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> This - this is where I am at and I’m not even retired yet.
> 
> Since 2015 (when I was on impact and the fighters were pulled out, and a few other events happened) my GAFF has plummeted.
> 
> ...


Good ideas EITS. I am really struggling with retirement. With the move to a foreign country, the things I enjoyed in Canada are no longer available, so that puts a barrier up.

Certain things, that the Belgian people accept, drive me crazy. My wife says I need to calm down, I am not in that place yet.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Good ideas EITS. I am really struggling with retirement. With the move to a foreign country, the things I enjoyed in Canada are no longer available, so that puts a barrier up.
> 
> Certain things, that the Belgian people accept, drive me crazy. My wife says I need to calm down, I am not in that place yet.



You should write about that.

Bill Bryson needs some competition


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Good ideas EITS. I am really struggling with retirement. With the move to a foreign country, the things I enjoyed in Canada are no longer available, so that puts a barrier up.
> 
> Certain things, that the Belgian people accept, drive me crazy. My wife says I need to calm down, I am not in that place yet.









I hear the Belgians make good beer 😁


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Oct 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> My trade has been on the pilot and has a SCRIT. 🤷🏻‍♂️


Sure, but there wasn't one available for the writing period. My big takeaway from doing the promotion board was you need to look at the scrit. Justifying leadership, communication were absolutely critical but frequently not done to the detriment of the member.

If there is going to be something critical for the PARs that needs to be in the 2 lines of text for people to get scored really needs to be well understood.

Assuming they are playing it by ear for the pilot, and there will be some kind of useful feedback for the CAF, but my takeaway is to get the SCRITs and make sure you tick the boxes, vice going off someone's imperfect understanding who may have never been on a selection board.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I hear the Belgians make good beer 😁



I used to enjoy inciting the Belgians to fight each other.

If you know a little bit about how the Flems and Walloons interact which, being Canadian, we do you can spark some pretty good little public spats.

It's one of my darker hobbies


----------



## Weinie (26 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I hear the Belgians make good beer 😁


When I drink too much Belgian beer, my wife rages. Happy wife, happy life.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I used to enjoy inciting the Belgians to fight each other.
> 
> If you know a little bit about how the Flems and Walloons interact which, being Canadian, we do you can spark some pretty good little public spats.
> 
> It's one of my darker hobbies


Human cockfights!  Sounds awesome!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> You should write about that.
> 
> Bill Bryson needs some competition


Actually- not an awful suggestion. Start writing.

Plus, there are about a billion battlefield sites/war cemeteries within 20km of your house….


----------



## Weinie (26 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I hear the Belgians make good beer 😁


I used to go to the basement, switch on the large screen TV, and access to a mini-beer fridge, and watch American College football on Saturday, and NFL on Sunday til I achieved zen. Similarly, I used to travel home to Nova Scotia for two weeks every year for deer hunting. The results of the hunt didn't really matter, as I spent 14 days in the camp with cousins, uncles, and friends, and we traded insults, competed in crib. 45's and hearts, heard  war stories, and generally got re-acquainted. Those were the things that motivated me. In Belgium........................


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> I used to go to the basement, switch on the large screen TV, and access to a mini-beer fridge, and watch American College football on Saturday, and NFL on Sunday til I achieved zen. Similarly, I used to travel home to Nova Scotia for two weeks every year for deer hunting. The results of the hunt didn't really matter, as I spent 14 days in the camp with cousins, uncles, and friends, and we traded insults, competed in crib. 45's and hearts, heard  war stories, and generally got re-acquainted. Those were the things that motivated me. In Belgium........................


Clearly, I need to hop on a plane to Europe, stay at your house and insult you for a week or so…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> I used to go to the basement, switch on the large screen TV, and access to a mini-beer fridge, and watch American College football on Saturday, and NFL on Sunday til I achieved zen. Similarly, I used to travel home to Nova Scotia for two weeks every year for deer hunting. The results of the hunt didn't really matter, as I spent 14 days in the camp with cousins, uncles, and friends, and we traded insults, competed in crib. 45's and hearts, heard  war stories, and generally got re-acquainted. Those were the things that motivated me. In Belgium........................


Yah I get it, I personally am not a huge fan of Eurostan myself.

You could always take up Football Hooliganism or Rioting.  Seems to be popular there 😁


----------



## Weinie (26 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Actually- not an awful suggestion. Start writing.
> 
> Plus, there are about a billion battlefield sites/war cemeteries within 20km of your house….


Ummmmmmmmmm. Not interested. We are going to Waterloo next week, which I understand has an amazing museum.


----------



## Weinie (26 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Clearly, I need to hop on a plane to Europe, stay at your house and insult you for a week or so…


I'm not suggesting I am going to garrote myself. And you are welcome anytime.

But from my limited perspective, retirement sucks shit, and Belgium exacerbates it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Good ideas EITS. I am really struggling with retirement. With the move to a foreign country, the things I enjoyed in Canada are no longer available, so that puts a barrier up.
> 
> Certain things, that the Belgian people accept, drive me crazy. My wife says I need to calm down, I am not in that place yet.



That would be a tough combo.   I’ve always had this idea of moving to Scotland and having a small hobby farm in the northern around the Inverness area.   No doubt if I pulled it off I’d miss some Canada stuff too.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> I'm not suggesting I am going to garrote myself. And you are welcome anytime.
> 
> But from my limited perspective, retirement sucks shit, and Belgium exacerbates it.


Lift weights and get HUUGGGEEE.  Or take up a Martial Art like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.  It's great for centreing your mind.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Lift weights and get HUUGGGEEE.  Or take up a Martial Art like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.  It's great for centreing your mind.



He could hang out with the Muscles from Brussels!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> He could hang out with the Muscles from Brussels!


Or Ubereem!


----------



## FJAG (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> I'm not suggesting I am going to garrote myself. And you are welcome anytime.
> 
> But from my limited perspective, retirement sucks shit, and Belgium exacerbates it.


----------



## NavalMoose (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> Ummmmmmmmmm. Not interested. We are going to Waterloo next week, which I understand has an amazing museum.


Pace yourself if you go up the Lion Monument...it's a doozy of a climb


----------



## Weinie (26 Oct 2022)

NavalMoose said:


> Pace yourself if you go up the Lion Monument...it's a doozy of a climb


Saw it from the highway as I was taking my eldest to a soccer game two weeks ago. Thanks for the advice.


----------



## CBH99 (26 Oct 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Actually- not an awful suggestion. Start writing.
> 
> Plus, there are about a billion battlefield sites/war cemeteries within 20km of your house….


So in a scale of 1 to 10, how haunted would the house be?  🤨


----------



## Weinie (26 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> So in a scale of 1 to 10, how haunted would the house be?  🤨


0. But the house occasionally smells, because I have three boys, and they play soccer, and fart.


----------



## lenaitch (26 Oct 2022)

Retirement + new country + three kids at home.  Tough combination.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Oct 2022)

Weinie said:


> I'm not suggesting I am going to garrote myself. And you are welcome anytime.
> 
> But from my limited perspective, retirement sucks shit, and Belgium exacerbates it.


Go to work for NATO? Jobs are all tax free…


----------



## mariomike (26 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> The CAF is pretty clear that it doesn’t GAFF about retirees. That’s someone else’s job.



There's always the Legion. But, maybe it's not necessarily the end of the line in a member's working life, but perhaps a new beginning as they transition to a new career.


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> There's always the Legion. But, maybe it's not necessarily the end of the line in a member's working life, but perhaps a new beginning as they transition to a new career.


The Legion seems to be firmly dying as a veterans’ organization. It may have a future as a social organization, but that remains to be seen.

In the last 10 years I have seen a bit of an uptick in participation in various regimental/branch associations from veterans of ‘my’ generation (Bosnia/Afghanistan) — but this seems uneven among the cap badges. The Legion had the advantage that it is/was capbadge agnostic and widely geographically spread.


----------



## kev994 (26 Oct 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> The Legion seems to be firmly dying as a veterans’ organization. It may have a future as a social organization, but that remains to be seen.
> 
> In the last 10 years I have seen a bit of an uptick in participation in various regimental/branch associations from veterans of ‘my’ generation (Bosnia/Afghanistan) — but this seems uneven among the cap badges. The Legion had the advantage that it is/was capbadge agnostic and widely geographically spread.


I applied for a free membership because it comes with a discount program, it’s been over a week and they still haven’t processed it or responded to an email so they’re not helping themselves.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Oct 2022)

Retention problems? What retention problems? 


Retention vs. Attrition in the CAF​The landscape that we work within is constantly changing and we must be proactive in identifying and addressing CAF members’ needs in order to retain our personnel. The CAF must provide support to our members so that they can meet their full potential and serve for the full extent of their career with honour and satisfaction in their service. Retention is also about keeping the right people – those who positively support the organization with their skills, education, engagement, and dedication. When we talk about retention, it is with the understanding that although the CAF has healthy overall retention, there are still specific demographics and occupations in which unique attrition issues have been identified. 
A low attrition rate masks the impact of the loss of a few members in key capabilities. When a member leaves, they take with them years of knowledge, experience, education, and skills that are not easily replaced. Even members with fewer years’ experience represent the loss of unique skills, knowledge, and investment in training when they choose to leave the CAF. Members with the technical, cognitive, social, and leadership skills required to carry out the CAF mission must be selected, trained, and promoted from within the CAF at significant expense. The unanticipated release of personnel, even in low numbers, can create critical shortcomings in the ability to maintain operations and can take years and substantial resources (personnel, material and financial) to correct. This effect can be even more problematic with the loss of personnel with key skills and expertise in specialized domains – personnel whose skills and knowledge are also in high demand in Canadian society.






						3.0 Retention vs. Attrition in the CAF - Canada.ca
					

The landscape that we work within is constantly changing and we must be proactive in identifying and addressing CAF members’ needs in order to retain our personnel.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Retention problems? What retention problems?
> 
> 
> Retention vs. Attrition in the CAF​The landscape that we work within is constantly changing and we must be proactive in identifying and addressing CAF members’ needs in order to retain our personnel. The CAF must provide support to our members so that they can meet their full potential and serve for the full extent of their career with honour and satisfaction in their service. Retention is also about keeping the right people – those who positively support the organization with their skills, education, engagement, and dedication. *When we talk about retention, it is with the understanding that although the CAF has healthy overall retention, there are still specific demographics and occupations in which unique attrition issues have been identified.*
> ...



What bong watered flavoured kool aid are they drinking where the CAF has a healthy overall retention rate and not fighting with attrition across the board?

At this point, when we have consistent high attrition in specific trades, that should no longer be unexpected releases, but just an ongoing trend we are going to do SFA about.

Don't worry though the RCN is going to somehow recruit and train 4 years worth of people next quarter and fix everything. Pay no attention for the lack of training capacity, limited space for trainees on ships, limited capacity for trades training, and general shortage of supervisors (esepcially for unqualified sailors).


----------



## CBH99 (30 Oct 2022)

Question 🙋‍♂️ 

-  Why do we have a lack of training capacity?  (Is it a lack of classroom space? Instructors?  Training materials?)

-  I have read that some ships have deployed without a full crew, and deploying with the minimal crew has become fairly normal.  

Why would there not be enough room onboard a ship for a trainee?  


Agreed overall.  The article is pretty tone deaf to our actual situation…


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> What bong watered flavoured kool aid are they drinking where the CAF has a healthy overall retention rate and not fighting with attrition across the board?
> 
> At this point, when we have consistent high attrition in specific trades, that should no longer be unexpected releases, but just an ongoing trend we are going to do SFA about.
> 
> Don't worry though the RCN is going to somehow recruit and train 4 years worth of people next quarter and fix everything. Pay no attention for the lack of training capacity, limited space for trainees on ships, limited capacity for trades training, and general shortage of supervisors (esepcially for unqualified sailors).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> What bong watered flavoured kool aid are they drinking where the CAF has a healthy overall retention rate and not fighting with attrition across the board?
> 
> At this point, when we have consistent high attrition in specific trades, that should no longer be unexpected releases, but just an ongoing trend we are going to do SFA about.
> 
> *Don't worry though the RCN is going to somehow recruit and train 4 years worth of people next quarter and fix everything. Pay no attention for the lack of training capacity, limited space for trainees on ships, limited capacity for trades training, and general shortage of supervisors (esepcially for unqualified sailors).*


They made a great movie about this type of military delusion on Netflix:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Retention problems? What retention problems?
> 
> 
> Retention vs. Attrition in the CAF​The landscape that we work within is constantly changing and we must be proactive in identifying and addressing CAF members’ needs in order to retain our personnel. The CAF must provide support to our members so that they can meet their full potential and serve for the full extent of their career with honour and satisfaction in their service. Retention is also about keeping the right people – those who positively support the organization with their skills, education, engagement, and dedication. When we talk about retention, it is with the understanding that although the CAF has healthy overall retention, there are still specific demographics and occupations in which unique attrition issues have been identified.
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (30 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Question 🙋‍♂️
> 
> -  Why do we have a lack of training capacity?  (Is it a lack of classroom space? Instructors?  Training materials?)
> 
> ...


The CAF divested training capacity as an after-effect of Program Review in the mid 90s.  With reduced intake, some folks saw the schools operating at well under capacity as areas for further reduction / reallocation; this ignored that the trough in students was temporary, not permanent.

This has never been adequately fixed; CAF schools continue to have insufficient manning and are reliant on CFTPO to steal personnel from operational units for even their baseline activities.

Regarding ships, my understanding is that while they are large, the spaces are either filled or not amenable to being used for overflow sleeping quarters.  The current fleet (excluding AOPS) were designed with accommodation for their operational crew - additional bunks for personnel under training were not a design consideration.  With the AOPS, it's my understanding that here is additional space available which can be configured for additional accommodation - and the ship's hotelling (feeding, bathing, fresh water systems) are scoped to support more personnel as well.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The CAF divested training capacity as an after-effect of Program Review in the mid 90s.  With reduced intake, some folks saw the schools operating at well under capacity as areas for further reduction / reallocation; this ignored that the trough in students was temporary, not permanent.
> 
> This has never been adequately fixed; * CAF schools continue to have insufficient manning and are reliant on CFTPO to steal personnel from operational units for even their baseline activities. *


Two way street. Units don't send pers for CFTPOs, training is scaled back or cancelled, new blood isn't filling up the Bns, pers get over tasked Units are frustrated when asked to send someone on CFTPO to support the schools.

At the school I'm at, we have the instructor Cadre we need. We have brought down the number of BTL folks via attached postings or other training opportunities. It's not a matter of there being g too few instructors for students where I'm at. 

What we lack is infrastructure. All well in good to waiver a course from 12 up to 48 candidates because you have the instructors... but you lack 36 pers worth of kit, classroom space, barracks, and support staff to see it through properly.

All that happens is quality of training plummets in favour of clearing the log jam.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Oct 2022)

Fair, it's not 100% personnel shortfalls.  There are also issues in some corps with insufficient equipment / infra for training... We have not kept up with training facilities above Enhanced Reliability.


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Question 🙋‍♂️
> 
> -  Why do we have a lack of training capacity?  (Is it a lack of classroom space? Instructors?  Training materials?)
> 
> ...


Ships deploying on HR are overfull with people; you usually are fighting for each department to get spots. If you have trainees they are already qualified at one job and training for the next, or otherwise bringing something to the table (like speaking a specific language). Ships are really complicated, we reduced crew numbers by giving everyone multiple roles, so it takes time to get someone up to a baseline of being useful.

With ships sailing on skeleton crews you don't have enough people to do any supervising and actually train people. MSE departments are rolling with around 25 people total out of the 50-60 they are supposed to have, so while you may have room for another 100 people, unless 25-30 of them are MS-PO (with a few officers), there just isn't enough people to run an entire department worth of S3s through some useful training, handle the admin, or keep them out of danger in an emergency. Having an extra set of hands to help a trained person do a task can be great, having 4-5 untrained people per qualified person is just a huge burden, especially when they already have more work than time.

We've also been pretty good at pulling instructors out of the schools to fill key positions to get ships at sea, but facilities, equipment and experienced teachers is all part of the logjam. We shut down the programs we had to run people through college programs and then provide a bit of delta training/OJT, so those would have to be stood back up again (which also requires a few experienced people to help run/administrate), so even our external surge options are gone.

Things like the DC school also have limited throughput, and those buildings are 25 years old and need some TLC, so that would probably be the most obvious chokepoint for getting people through their initial training before they are on a ship, but even after they get basic fire/flood training, really nowhere for a big chunk of sailors to go.

Our input to the training system has dropped a lot over the years, so the infrastructure has scaled back accordingly. The last SIP I saw from 2019 had something like 120 people recruited that entire year, with comparable numbers before that, and people still spend time on PAT waiting for courses, but gives you an idea of what the system is set up for.

Fixing it is all doable, but some of these things would take a few years to get setup if we start now, IF the RCN takes some significant steps to slow down the OPSCHED, maybe retire some ships, and park others so we could actually have enough instructors, while doing things like night courses or shift training around the limited training spots for the equipment specific stations.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Ships deploying on HR are overfull with people; you usually are fighting for each department to get spots. If you have trainees they are already qualified at one job and training for the next, or otherwise bringing something to the table (like speaking a specific language). Ships are really complicated, we reduced crew numbers by giving everyone multiple roles, so it takes time to get someone up to a baseline of being useful.
> 
> With ships sailing on skeleton crews you don't have enough people to do any supervising and actually train people. MSE departments are rolling with around 25 people total out of the 50-60 they are supposed to have, so while you may have room for another 100 people, unless 25-30 of them are MS-PO (with a few officers), there just isn't enough people to run an entire department worth of S3s through some useful training, handle the admin, or keep them out of danger in an emergency. Having an extra set of hands to help a trained person do a task can be great, having 4-5 untrained people per qualified person is just a huge burden, especially when they already have more work than time.
> 
> ...


The last sail I did before leaving the fleet was just scary.  Boatloads of non-NETP qualified people running around.  Section Bases filled with untrained pers and were doing a CLAS Sail, TGEX and they also jammed Fleet SWOAD in to there. 

We didn't even have any ATLs in my Section Base, I acted as an ATL but I do not have the actual course.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The last sail I did before leaving the fleet was just scary.  Boatloads of non-NETP qualified people running around.  Section Bases filled with untrained pers and were doing a CLAS Sail, TGEX and they also jammed Fleet SWOAD in to there.
> 
> We didn't even have any ATLs in my Section Base, I acted as an ATL but I do not have the actual course.


----------



## Weinie (31 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


>


Leave James Tiberius Kirk out of this discussion. He accomplished all his missions, plus Kobayashi Maru.


----------



## Furniture (31 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The last sail I did before leaving the fleet was just scary.  Boatloads of non-NETP qualified people running around.  Section Bases filled with untrained pers and were doing a CLAS Sail, TGEX and they also jammed Fleet SWOAD in to there.
> 
> We didn't even have any ATLs in my Section Base, I acted as an ATL but I do not have the actual course.


The PRO fire wasn't all that long ago... I had hoped the RCN had learned something.


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> The PRO fire wasn't all that long ago... I had hoped the RCN had learned something.



Operational commitments trump everything.  Be dammed the material and personnel state. 

Not saying its right, just saying I know how the monster thinks.  Hell, aren't you part of the Ops Dept ?  You should know this


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Oct 2022)

Furniture said:


> The PRO fire wasn't all that long ago... I had hoped the RCN had learned something.


Hard to learn lessons from a Confidential BOI that has never been redacted for distribution.

There is a summary LL document but without the context of the fire investigation and sequence it's not really useful, and worse case, can actually lead to someone running with the recommendation to do something dangerous. A few of the recommendations don't make sense in modern designs due to some changes, or because it was on a steam ship.

FRE was a near miss from the RCN last year (a lot of other ships would have ran aground) and SFA has changed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> I applied for a free membership because it comes with a discount program, it’s been over a week and they still haven’t processed it or responded to an email so they’re not helping themselves.


Keep in mind most of the positions are done by volunteers, so a week is not that long.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The CAF divested training capacity as an after-effect of Program Review in the mid 90s.  With reduced intake, some folks saw the schools operating at well under capacity as areas for further reduction / reallocation; this ignored that the trough in students was temporary, not permanent.
> 
> This has never been adequately fixed; CAF schools continue to have insufficient manning and are reliant on CFTPO to steal personnel from operational units for even their baseline activities.
> 
> Regarding ships, my understanding is that while they are large, the spaces are either filled or not amenable to being used for overflow sleeping quarters.  The current fleet (excluding AOPS) were designed with accommodation for their operational crew - additional bunks for personnel under training were not a design consideration.  With the AOPS, it's my understanding that here is additional space available which can be configured for additional accommodation - and the ship's hotelling (feeding, bathing, fresh water systems) are scoped to support more personnel as well.


Maybe take one of those AOP's destined for the CCG (that they don't want) and turn it into a training ship, onboard simulator, small bridge ontop of the main, more bunks, classrooms, fit a 57mm as well and a simulated missile system. Not the best choice of hulls, but cheaper and faster than a whole new ship design.


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Maybe take one of those AOP's destined for the CCG (that they don't want) and turn it into a training ship, onboard simulator, small bridge ontop of the main, more bunks, classrooms, fit a 57mm as well and a simulated missile system. Not the best choice of hulls, but cheaper and faster than a whole new ship design.


We used to have a 'training fleet' with a few ships dropped down to basics and the lights turned out each night. We could simply mothball a few CPFs and use one per coast as a training 'school' that's floating. Mothballed ships still need basic maintenance and that way we could work on actual equipment and do the same familiarization that you do anyway. Doing the occasional basin trial or other basic system trials/flashups is useful generally.

AOPs has about 20 odd people det that can come on, so still needs a core,fully qualified crew, so would be a net increase in our requirements.


----------



## Underway (31 Oct 2022)

Training ship is coming back as a concept. As an engineer all I see is TRANREQ target number one for FEO


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> Training ship is coming back as a concept. As an engineer all I see is TRANREQ target number one for FEO



So basically the early mid 2000s VDQ ?  BLDG 332


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> Training ship is coming back as a concept. As an engineer all I see is TRANREQ target number one for FEO



Better buy these back 









						For sale in Vancouver: 4,000 square feet for less than $300K
					

But you’ll have to pay moorage fees and find a place to park the 152-foot former Navy vessel.



					bc.ctvnews.ca


----------



## MARS (31 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> We used to have a 'training fleet' with a few ships dropped down to basics and the lights turned out each night. We could simply mothball a few CPFs and use one per coast as a training 'school' that's floating. Mothballed ships still need basic maintenance and that way we could work on actual equipment and do the same familiarization that you do anyway. Doing the occasional basin trial or other basic system trials/flashups is useful generally.


Harbour Training Ship (HTS) Assinboine (formerly HMCS)  was one of my first ships and was used exactly like this. We slept on-board, stood duty watches, etc. 

 From there I was posted to 4 Squadron, - an actual training squadron- which was HMCS MacKenzie, Saskatchewan and Yukon.  We are too lean now  for the squadron but yeah, at least as a boatswain in the early 90s, a HTS was a highly effective introductory platform


----------



## Grimey (31 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Yes.





Navy_Pete said:


> We used to have a 'training fleet' with a few ships dropped down to basics and the lights turned out each night. We could simply mothball a few CPFs and use one per coast as a training 'school' that's floating. Mothballed ships still need basic maintenance and that way we could work on actual equipment and do the same familiarization that you do anyway. Doing the occasional basin trial or other basic system trials/flashups is useful generally.
> 
> AOPs has about 20 odd people det that can come on, so still needs a core,fully qualified crew, so would be a net increase in our requirements.


Ah, I think you're referring to the old 4 Squadron.......

For the uninitiated, imagine having a 4th of your destroyer/frigate fleet devoted, for the most part, to turning out baby snotters of the NWO and Marine Engineering persuasion.  This was a luxury few other navies possessed at the time and even fewer (the JMSDF maybe) have today.  Granted, the ships were way past it, being hardly modified Mackenzie-class, but as a training platform they were great.  The MSE departments at the time made up a third of the crew (50-60 bods) and pier head jumping was pretty much unheard of.  

4 Squadrons demise coincided with a drum beat of CPFs appearing on the Left coast between '92 and 96.  Also lost in the same time frame were the Bay-class minesweepers that gave the snotters their first taste of sea (and to me at the time the first anecdotal evidence that NWO's eat their own).

So, a huge amount of training bunks disappeared overnight for both officers and technical rates, to be replaced by virtual simulator-based training and very few training bunks on a frigate. 

I think you and I both have 280 time and would likely agree that IROs weren't plagued with the same training bunk limitations as our frigate colleagues.  

From my (ten year removed) perspective, the only way out of this mess is for Angus to speak truth to power and plead that the current OPSCHED is untenable, a ship or two on each coast needs to be tied up and at least one becomes a dedicated harbour training vessel.

None of this is really new for the MSE Department.  FRP and low recruiting slipped the knife in under the ribs in '94/95, all-out effort on Op APOLLO pushed it in to the hilt, demographics twisted it.


----------



## Underway (31 Oct 2022)

Grimey said:


> From my (ten year removed) perspective, the only way out of this mess is for Angus to speak truth to power and plead that the current OPSCHED is untenable, a ship or two on each coast needs to be tied up and at least one becomes a dedicated harbour training vessel.


Topper's advantage is he never working in Ottawa before (the city, not the ship) and doesn't have any Ottawa scar tissue.

That's also his disadvantage.  Working on the coast your whole career complaining about Ottawa and never actually seeing how the sausage gets made is something unique for Flag officers.

And the OPSCHED is untenable, we all know it.  HMCS Ottawa is the last ship on the west coast that will match the current drumbeat.  The Regina delay has changed everything and it's all being rewritten as we speak.  The current overarching goal is training and force generation, not force employment.


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Oct 2022)

Grimey said:


> Ah, I think you're referring to the old 4 Squadron.......
> 
> For the uninitiated, imagine having a 4th of your destroyer/frigate fleet devoted, for the most part, to turning out baby snotters of the NWO and Marine Engineering persuasion.  This was a luxury few other navies possessed at the time and even fewer (the JMSDF maybe) have today.  Granted, the ships were way past it, being hardly modified Mackenzie-class, but as a training platform they were great.  The MSE departments at the time made up a third of the crew (50-60 bods) and pier head jumping was pretty much unheard of.
> 
> ...



Absolutely, and agree with everything else as well. I think we could easily have a few partly mothballed ships as a 4 squadron. Virtual training is okay but doesn't replicate the real thing, and at some point you need hands on wrenches, crawling in bilges, and hauling rope to develop skills, and virtual training will never come up with the defects that you'll see on ship and have to troubleshoot.

The 280s still had room for trainees even on deployed ships, we don't have that anymore and will only get worse with future platforms. Reduced crewing requires more skilled people, and other navies have training ships to get their basic skills, and roll onto the big ships as essentially QL5 or higher. Really no room for trainees, especially when all the extras come on for deployments. When you are doing SR with maybe less operators and bunks are available, you are effectively taking people away from their primary jobs to do training, which is a problem when the core crew won't have enough hours in the day to keep up with routine PM and normal ship duties at the start.

A lot of the OPSCHED pressure is completely self imposed though by the CRCN, and I still can't believe we didn't slows things down with COVID to try and catch up, or at least acknowledge it was impossible to keep up with the opsched during COVID without increasing SWPs to allow for all the precautions and complications to try and get the ship out the door COVID free. 

I think the 'truth to power' probably needs to start lower down the chain and up to CRCN, as a lot of stuff coming out of that office seem detached from reality/evidence.


----------



## TacticalTea (31 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> *Topper*'s advantage is he never working in Ottawa before (the city, not the ship) and doesn't have any Ottawa scar tissue.


Top-who?


Underway said:


> And the OPSCHED is untenable, we all know it.  HMCS Ottawa is the last ship on the west coast that will match the current drumbeat.  The Regina delay has changed everything and it's all being rewritten as we speak.  The current overarching goal is training and force generation, not force employment.


I don't understand why it took so long. 

The problem - and the immediate solution - have been plainly obvious to everyone for years. Heck it's in the COLREGS, Rule 8(3): Slow down.



Navy_Pete said:


> Absolutely, and agree with everything else as well. I think we could easily have a few partly mothballed ships as a 4 squadron. Virtual training is okay but doesn't replicate the real thing, and at some point you need hands on wrenches, crawling in bilges, and hauling rope to develop skills, and virtual training will never come up with the defects that you'll see on ship and have to troubleshoot.


It's nothing against virtual training, but if any amount of training is non-virtual (which there will be) and has lesser capacity than your virtual training, then inevitably you're going to get a bottleneck. The great thing about shipboard training is that the capacity is scalable, unlike simulators that have fixed capacity. 

Why that scalability hasn't been exploited? Again, beyond me.


----------



## Underway (31 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Top-who?


The CRCN VAdm Topshee, which alot of people call Topper. Just like anyone with the last name Campbell is automatically called Soupy.


----------



## TacticalTea (31 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> The CRCN VAdm Topshee, which alot of people call Topper. Just like anyone with the last name Campbell is automatically called Soupy.


I know, that's just a pet peeve of mine, not a fan of disfiguring names, in writing or speaking. I wasn't being too serious though. S'all good.


----------



## FSTO (31 Oct 2022)

MARS said:


> Harbour Training Ship (HTS) Assinboine (formerly HMCS)  was one of my first ships and was used exactly like this. We slept on-board, stood duty watches, etc.
> 
> From there I was posted to 4 Squadron, - an actual training squadron- which was HMCS MacKenzie, Saskatchewan and Yukon.  We are too lean now  for the squadron but yeah, at least as a boatswain in the early 90s, a HTS was a highly effective introductory platform


HTS Columbia on the west coast. We learned how to launch and recover the sea boat and the engineers could do full power trials and all sorts of grimy stuff. 

My first ship ever was HTS St Croix


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Oct 2022)

I'm not sure why the Navy is complaining. Less people means more food, more hot water, and more plunder.

Hell it sounds like you don't even need to bother with being qualified.


----------



## dimsum (1 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm not sure why the Navy is complaining. Less people means more food, more hot water, and more plunder.
> 
> Hell it sounds like you don't even need to bother with being qualified.


I think more people would want to join if plunder was involved.  Offsets the cost of living in Victoria/Halifax.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm not sure why the Navy is complaining. Less people means more food, more hot water, and more plunder.
> 
> Hell it sounds like you don't even need to bother with being qualified.


If I were allowed to actually keep the plunder I acquired during my time, I would never have to work another day in my life:







😁😁😁😁

The dolphins enjoyed their snacks 😆


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Nov 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> If I were allowed to actually keep the plunder I acquired during my time, I would never have to work another day in my life:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would this have been you ? 

Yaaaaaar drug busts on the _high_ seas...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Would this have been you ?
> 
> Yaaaaaar drug busts on the _high_ seas...








😁😁😁😁


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2022)

The Lonely Island enters the conversation.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The Lonely Island enters the conversation.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think more people would want to join if plunder was involved.  Offsets the cost of living in Victoria/Halifax.





Jarnhamar said:


> I'm not sure why the Navy is complaining. Less people means more food, more hot water, and more plunder.
> 
> Hell it sounds like you don't even need to bother with being qualified.


So, funny story, RCN crews are no longer able to claim salvage rights. It happened sometime in the 70s on some kind of abandoned container ship and was split between the crew. The guy I worked with was really happy to get a payout as an OD, but I guess a lot of the senior people just retired.

Pretty funny example of one of those expectations that was in place that became a rule when someone realized no one ever actually wrote down that they couldn't do it. I'm not sure where it's actually written down though so if it was in an old set of orders or pub may have since been canceled/superceded. Might short term help with crew satisfaction but medium term cause massive attrition.



TacticalTea said:


> The great thing about shipboard training is that the capacity is scalable, unlike simulators that have fixed capacity.
> 
> Why that scalability hasn't been exploited? Again, beyond me.


Shipboard training requires additional LOE, interferes with ongoing work on ship, and also requires more people. It still gets done, in small scale, but with how much work is jammed into SWPs (due to crazy OPSCHED) it can be hard to fit in around other things. That's where shore based trainers are great (like the diesel trainers that you can run up) but is one of those expensive infrastructure bits that we don't necessarily have for all items, or space in the schools to add on more.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

Underway said:


> Topper's advantage is he never working in Ottawa before (the city, not the ship) and doesn't have any Ottawa scar tissue.
> 
> That's also his disadvantage.  Working on the coast your whole career complaining about Ottawa and never actually seeing how the sausage gets made is something unique for Flag officers.
> 
> And the OPSCHED is untenable, we all know it.  HMCS Ottawa is the last ship on the west coast that will match the current drumbeat.  The Regina delay has changed everything and it's all being rewritten as we speak.  The current overarching goal is training and force generation, not force employment.


I"m skeptical it will be anything different, and they will still beat the hell out of the ships while they have them, just in a different cycle.

We need 8-10 week blocks alongside, staggered SWPs and less ships operational. We'll get the same as we have now, just in a 5+2 schedule.

The lack of basic understanding of L1 responsibilities is pretty evident, and "I don't work for CRCN so I'll have to check with with CoC" has come up a few times already, or other scenarios where he has exceeded his authority and other organization have stepped in to say he can't actually do something and follow CAF orders.

Anyone who wants to be a GOFO really need at least one job working somewhere in Ottawa; much easier to figure out as a Lt(N) when people expect you to not know how it works and will go out of their way to explain who does what. You can't give orders though to people who don't actually work for you so at least looking at the Org charts would be good.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I"m skeptical it will be anything different, and they will still beat the hell out of the ships while they have them, just in a different cycle.
> 
> We need 8-10 week blocks alongside, staggered SWPs and less ships operational. We'll get the same as we have now, just in a 5+2 schedule.
> 
> ...



The Log Branch enters the chat...


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> The Log Branch enters the chat...


 We are actively commiserating with them over the PMO's initial provisioning plan. Sure, some things makes sense to be GSM, including low dollar value things, but it's like the PMOs expect that if someone else is buying things they will somehow magically get capacity, spending authority and time.

They are also nice enough to leave it all until ship delivery, vice have a plan ahead of time so that we collectively have some kind of lead time. Fortunately the supply chain is robust and there are no delays so it's fine.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> We are actively commiserating with them over the PMO's initial provisioning plan. Sure, some things makes sense to be GSM, including low dollar value things, but it's like the PMOs expect that if someone else is buying things they will somehow magically get capacity, spending authority and time.
> 
> They are also nice enough to leave it all until ship delivery, vice have a plan ahead of time so that we collectively have some kind of lead time. Fortunately the supply chain is robust and there are no delays so it's fine.



I'm very interested to see the billeting for the Log Dept.  I know the RCN wants nothing more than to get rid of us.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm very interested to see the billeting for the Log Dept.  I know the RCN wants nothing more than to get rid of us.


But.... why?

Having your own log dept that has pretty generous authorities while deployed is a massive benefit, and Navy log seems much better trained than Army/Air Force on how to make things happen. Things that other log officers do full time is someone on ship's secondary.

The basis of a lot of decisions seems to be butthurt and axe grinding.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> But.... why?
> 
> Having your own log dept that has pretty generous authorities while deployed is a massive benefit, and Navy log seems much better trained than Army/Air Force on how to make things happen. Things that other log officers do full time is someone on ship's secondary.
> 
> The basis of a lot of decisions seems to be butthurt and axe grinding.


So the Navy can give NWO Subbies more secondary duties   

"Wadda yah mean you can't be a part time PAO!?"


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> So the Navy can give NWO Subbies more secondary duties
> 
> "Wadda yah mean you can't be a part time PAO!?"


I guess once they get their BWK moustache, they can just do all the jobs.

(My secondary as a phase 6 was the cell phone guy, which included signing all the bills and working with IT, pretty random for the embryO)


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> But.... why?
> 
> Having your own log dept that has pretty generous authorities while deployed is a massive benefit, and Navy log seems much better trained than Army/Air Force on how to make things happen. Things that other log officers do full time is someone on ship's secondary.
> 
> The basis of a lot of decisions seems to be butthurt and axe grinding.



Its the age old battle between hard and soft sea trades.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> We are actively commiserating with them over the PMO's initial provisioning plan. Sure, some things makes sense to be GSM, including low dollar value things, but it's like the PMOs expect that if someone else is buying things they will somehow magically get capacity, spending authority and time.
> 
> They are also nice enough to leave it all until ship delivery, vice have a plan ahead of time so that we collectively have some kind of lead time. Fortunately the supply chain is robust and there are no delays so it's fine.



"So, PMO, who's paying to outfit the ship - keeping in mind that if it isn't outfitted, you can't meet your definitions of IOC / FOC, and that the requirements documents do not identify anyone outside the project as having responsibilities?"


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> "So, PMO, who's paying to outfit the ship - keeping in mind that if it isn't outfitted, you can't meet your definitions of IOC / FOC, and that the requirements documents do not identify anyone outside the project as having responsibilities?"


COA 1;






I use, in conjunction with double Picard facepalm, far too often in professional dealings.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Its the age old battle between hard and soft sea trades.


Sure, but normally both sides aren't too busy doing up close colon self checks to realize that everyone likes to eat, and be able to do things like buy things and pay bills in outside of home port. The bulk of our sailing doesn't include FLS.

Or is it one of those scenarios where they don't like hearing no, so rather than understand the rules, they want to do it themselves? Log is there to keep you out of jail, not work miracles. If stuff isn't in the supply system, or shipping takes 14 days, they can't wave a wand.

The RCN is institutionally stupid.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, but normally both sides aren't too busy doing up close colon self checks to realize that everyone likes to eat, and be able to do things like buy things and pay bills in outside of home port. The bulk of our sailing doesn't include FLS.
> 
> Or is it one of those scenarios where they don't like hearing no, so rather than understand the rules, they want to do it themselves? Log is there to keep you out of jail, not work miracles. If stuff isn't in the supply system, or shipping takes 14 days, they can't wave a wand.
> 
> The RCN is institutionally stupid.



I would say the RCN has no real institutional understanding of Naval Logistics.  

Maybe that comes from Log being a completely different branch ?


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I would say the RCN has no real institutional understanding of Naval Logistics.
> 
> Maybe that comes from Log being a completely different branch ?


Maybe it's time for me to move on to something different but bit less optimistic about the institution these days.

I jokingly mocked up a CRCN coin using the image below and regret not submitting it now.


----------



## FSTO (1 Nov 2022)

Who is pushing this? Micromanagers?

I love having a person at my fingertips who know more than me about the little things that will get me in trouble. Command is the big picture person, your staff are the ones who keep you out of the ditch.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

FSTO said:


> Who is pushing this? Micromanagers?
> 
> I love having a person at my fingertips who know more than me about the little things that will get me in trouble. Command is the big picture person, your staff are the ones who keep you out of the ditch.


Right now there is a lot of upper echelon 'show us the evidence' folks, who then disregard actual evidence if it doesn't line up with their already made up decision.

Still no actual plan on who will cover the Steward's work; those 100ish positions is the equivalent to about a year's intake, and the possible replacements are all still well in the yellow/red. They just arbitrarily put in a date a few years out for what will take about 5 years to transition to in real terms.

COA 1: hope
COA 2: rectal pluck
COA 3: listen to the SMEs

Guess what's become the throw away?


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Nov 2022)

Nothing like a 'no-fail' option, set up for failure at the outset!


----------



## FJAG (1 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> So, funny story, RCN crews are no longer able to claim salvage rights.


It comes from s 51 of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act (I think).


> *51* (1) In the case of salvage services rendered by or with the aid of a Crown vessel, Her Majesty in right of Canada and the master and crew members of the Crown vessel may claim salvage for salvage services only if the Crown vessel is a tug or is specially equipped with a salvage plant.


🍻


----------



## Zoomie (2 Nov 2022)

Some confusing messaging being sent by CMP at the command conference in Ottawa last week.  

First Sentence : focus on retention and building the force.

Second Sentence : medical retentions will cease.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> _Right now there is a lot of upper echelon 'show us the evidence' folks, who then disregard actual evidence if it doesn't line up with their already made up decision._
> 
> Still no actual plan on who will cover the Steward's work; those 100ish positions is the equivalent to about a year's intake, and the possible replacements are all still well in the yellow/red. They just arbitrarily put in a date a few years out for what will take about 5 years to transition to in real terms.
> 
> ...


I would take issue with the underlined bit. I can guarantee you (I was in the room as a senior staff officer to the guy in charge of all projects including CF-18 and CPF and so on) that the disregard for evidence was a major driving force amongst most (not just many) very senior "operators." They wanted what they had seen in the shiny brochures given out in the gift bags at lavish dinners in very posh hotels - mostly in Washington, abut also in London, Paris and Bonn. We called that stuff "vapourware" but, by all the gods, it was effective.

BTW, even though the DM of the day reminded the "upper echelon" folks that accepting those gift bags was unethical, albeit not, strictly, illegal in the mid-to-late 1980s, only a handful ever even bothered to declare the gifts to DND's brand new conflict of interest watchdog.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> I would take issue with the underlined bit. I can guarantee you (I was in the room as a senior staff officer to the guy in charge of all projects including CF-18 and CPF and so on) that the disregard for evidence was a major driving force amongst most (not just many) very senior "operators." They wanted what they had seen in the shiny brochures given out in the gift bags at lavish dinners in very posh hotels - mostly in Washington, abut also in London, Paris and Bonn. We called that stuff "vapourware" but, by all the gods, it was effective.
> 
> BTW, even though the DM of the day reminded the "upper echelon" folks that accepting those gift bags was unethical, albeit not, strictly, illegal in the mid-to-late 1980s, only a handful ever even bothered to declare the gifts to DND's brand new conflict of interest watchdog.



Appreciate the insight, I just try to stick to what I know. Would believe that, and wasn't long ago that a lot of defence contractors would have big Xmas parties or something and invite DND people they work with for a meal/drinks.

I'm sure the vapourware still happens, but I think that has largely signficantly decreased (at least openly). I've been in a few big projects and even small things like nice coffee cups get turned down. May still happen much higher up the food chain, but who knows. Even once in contract simple stuff like company swag for things like golf tourney prizes can be awkward, and meals get declared on the travel forms. Pretty common to have hosted lunches (sandwhiches etc) while you are working through something, but that's about it. Still can socialize outside work but it's usually on a no-host basis.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2022)

FJAG said:


> It comes from s 51 of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act (I think).
> 
> 🍻


That makes perfect sense I guess, but probably for the best, as we aren't actually equipped to properly do salvage and open ocean tows.

Still, good backstory to a piece of legislation! Being the last HMC ship to claim salvage rights would be a fun dit at a retirement.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Nov 2022)

Zoomie said:


> Some confusing messaging being sent by CMP at the command conference in Ottawa last week.
> 
> First Sentence : focus on retention and building the force.
> 
> Second Sentence : medical retentions will cease.


Medical retentions, in my experience anyway, don’t really help us. Most cases that I have been involved in are a net drain on resources.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Medical retentions, in my experience anyway, don’t really help us. Most cases that I have been involved in are a net drain on resources.


I've seen a number of really good retentions on the technical side, and meant billets that would have been empty otherwise (due to the person being in a front line job instead).

Wasn't NATO knee, but for some people MELs seems to be the only thing keeping them from jetty jumping (which can take a toll and lead to MELs).

For an organization that is short people, losing experience, and wants to rebuild, not retaining experienced people doesn't make sense, if they can still make a meaningful contribution. There is a hiring process where they can transfer to the public service, but its time consuming and actually increases the SWE. Case by case obviously, so your mileage will vary, but when we develop specialists with 20 years of experience and run a lot of obsolete kit, it's nuts.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I've seen a number of really good retentions on the technical side, and meant billets that would have been empty otherwise (due to the person being in a front line job instead).
> 
> Wasn't NATO knee, but for some people MELs seems to be the only thing keeping them from jetty jumping (which can take a toll and lead to MELs).
> 
> For an organization that is short people, losing experience, and wants to rebuild, not retaining experienced people doesn't make sense, if they can still make a meaningful contribution. There is a hiring process where they can transfer to the public service, but its time consuming and actually increases the SWE. Case by case obviously, so your mileage will vary, but when we develop specialists with 20 years of experience and run a lot of obsolete kit, it's nuts.


Fair enough. I agree with you on the accelerated public service transfer option- I think that would be very good tool in our toolbox.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Nov 2022)

I have a fairly large collection of corporate coffee mugs and, espe4cially in my second (private sector) job I relied heavily on corporate pens and pencils.

I also have a small handful of (probably worth more than a hundred or two dollars) bits of engraved crystal and so on from a few companies with whom I worked on some (technical) issues. I reported them, of curse, and our conflict of interest watchdog asked me, once, "Did that gift make any difference, even in the slightest, to the Canadian position on that issue?" I said "No! Not one bit." and she - it was a female mid-ranked civil servant - said, "It (the bit of engraved crystal) is really nice, it will look lovely in your bookcase." I think I can say that the few expensive corporate gifts made no difference, ever, to the positions I advanced, for Canada, in various international fora but in a few cases some corporate executive4s felt that my actions made a measurable difference for them. The coffee cups and pens and so on were just part of the environment - harmless, I'm pretty certain, in 99.9% of all cases. I suspect there are still two or three in the back of the kitchen cabinet.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2022)

@SeaKingTacco, some kind of link between the two as well would be good. Right now they are totally independent, so hiring someone being medically released is under the normal veteran priority hiring program, and for the medical relase it's the same as any normal job offer where you can request things get expedited.

VAC gives help for transitioning to a new job/career, but focuses on totally outside DND/GoC. Lot of folks with knowledge/skillsets that would be useful for all kinds of jobs, and lots of people trying to find people with experience in the GoC processes.


----------



## captloadie (2 Nov 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Medical retentions, in my experience anyway, don’t really help us. Most cases that I have been involved in are a net drain on resources.


There are many instances where retaining someone medically benefitted the units I have been in.

However, the CAF is coming up against some precarious legal pitfalls wrt to Charter rights and disability legislation. It is becoming harder and harder to justify discriminating against individuals based on medical conditions or disabilities on one side, and then have policies that let you retain other individuals despite those same discriminating policies. People are starting to look at the CAF and say you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe it's time to create another uniformed force within the CAF who are subject to the same administrative and disciplinary rules as Reg F, but who don't need to meet all the medical requirements because they do not have a duty to deploy. There could even be a modified fitness evaluation where applicable.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Nov 2022)

captloadie said:


> There are many instances where retaining someone medically benefitted the units I have been in.
> 
> However, the CAF is coming up against some precarious legal pitfalls wrt to Charter rights and disability legislation. It is becoming harder and harder to justify discriminating against individuals based on medical conditions or disabilities on one side, and then have policies that let you retain other individuals despite those same discriminating policies. People are starting to look at the CAF and say you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> *Maybe it's time to create another uniformed force within the CAF who are subject to the same administrative and disciplinary rules as Reg F, but who don't need to meet all the medical requirements because they do not have a duty to deploy. There could even be a modified fitness evaluation where applicable.*



Great idea. We could call it 'Class B'


----------



## Furniture (2 Nov 2022)

captloadie said:


> There are many instances where retaining someone medically benefitted the units I have been in.
> 
> However, the CAF is coming up against some precarious legal pitfalls wrt to Charter rights and disability legislation. It is becoming harder and harder to justify discriminating against individuals based on medical conditions or disabilities on one side, and then have policies that let you retain other individuals despite those same discriminating policies. People are starting to look at the CAF and say you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> Maybe it's time to create another uniformed force within the CAF who are subject to the same administrative and disciplinary rules as Reg F, but who don't need to meet all the medical requirements because they do not have a duty to deploy. There could even be a modified fitness evaluation where applicable.


Retaining people in the "downtime" shore/admin billets also leads to losing/breaking fit people. 

I agree 100% that our retention policy has been unevenly applied, and will lead to problems. 

The last thing the CAF needs is a another tier of service. If you're full-time there should be one standard. My solution would be if you can't meet that standard then you move to a civilian contract. You get a 3 year contract to fill the position, then the CAF looks for a uniformed member to take the spot, if they can't you get another three years, until you leave or the CAF fills the position.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Nov 2022)

Furniture said:


> Retaining people in the "downtime" shore/admin billets also leads to losing/breaking fit people.
> 
> I agree 100% that our retention policy has been unevenly applied, and will lead to problems.
> 
> The last thing the CAF needs is a another tier of service. *If you're full-time there should be one standard. My solution would be if you can't meet that standard then you move to a civilian contract. You get a 3 year contract to fill the position, then the CAF looks for a uniformed member to take the spot, if they can't you get another three years, until you leave or the CAF fills the position.*



Which is not a merit based, performance focused solution but much like the 'long term gubmit job' unionized mentality type solution that got us all into this mess in the first place.

How about something like this instead? In my past experience, this policy's worked out pretty well for everyone except the enemy


----------



## Furniture (2 Nov 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Which is not a merit based, performance focused solution but much like the 'long term gubmit job' unionized mentality type solution that got us all into this mess in the first place.
> 
> How about something like this instead? In my past experience, this policy's worked out pretty well for everyone except the enemy


Thats great until the CAF and GoC don't like being on the front page of the National Post and G&M for abandoning injured members... I'm not talking about accommodating the useless, I'm talking about a viable alternative to medical retention of members on PCAT.

I do love that movie, and book.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Nov 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Which is not a merit based, performance focused solution but much like the 'long term gubmit job' unionized mentality type solution that got us all into this mess in the first place.
> 
> How about something like this instead? In my past experience, this policy's worked out pretty well for everyone except the enemy


This change your suggesting is the only real way this organization is going to remain functional. 

People who can no longer cut the mustard should be shown the door, as gracefully as possible.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Nov 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This change your suggesting is the only real way this organization is going to remain functional.
> 
> People who can no longer cut the mustard should be shown the door, as gracefully as possible.



Or even better....


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2022)

captloadie said:


> There are many instances where retaining someone medically benefitted the units I have been in.
> 
> However, the CAF is coming up against some precarious legal pitfalls wrt to Charter rights and disability legislation. It is becoming harder and harder to justify discriminating against individuals based on medical conditions or disabilities on one side, and then have policies that let you retain other individuals despite those same discriminating policies. People are starting to look at the CAF and say you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> Maybe it's time to create another uniformed force within the CAF who are subject to the same administrative and disciplinary rules as Reg F, but who don't need to meet all the medical requirements because they do not have a duty to deploy. There could even be a modified fitness evaluation where applicable.


Uh, no we aren't. People being retained on medical restrictions is a very specific, individual assessment on trained people, who are usually well past OFP but can still provide a useful function in very specific roles despite the medical limitation. Universality of service for anyone joining and most of the CAF is still fine, and lots of people will get injured but not necessarily still be able to contribute within their MELs.

We have a lot of positions going empty anyway and are only filled because someone is on MELs. Otherwise they'd be filling currently empty billets on an operational unit. 'Downtime' billets are no longer downtime billet, and knew a few people that had more sea time while in shore billets filling critical shortages. They asked for postings back to ships so they could at least have a dependable schedule for when they'd be gone.


----------



## Furniture (2 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Uh, no we aren't. People being retained on medical restrictions is a very specific, individual assessment on trained people, who are usually well past OFP but can still provide a useful function in very specific roles despite the medical limitation. Universality of service for anyone joining and most of the CAF is still fine, and lots of people will get injured but not necessarily still be able to contribute within their MELs.
> 
> We have a lot of positions going empty anyway and are only filled because someone is on MELs. Otherwise they'd be filling currently empty billets on an operational unit. 'Downtime' billets are no longer downtime billet, and knew a few people that had more sea time while in shore billets filling critical shortages. They asked for postings back to ships so they could at least have a dependable schedule for when they'd be gone.


The fact it's not a universally applied accommodation is exactly what could lead to it being challenged. E.g.

S1 Bloggins gets medically retained because they happen to be posted to a shore unit that is willing to take them, but S1 Smith gets shown the door because their unit needs people who can work shifts/deploy. 

S1 Smith decides its crap they they lose their $70K a year job, but S1 Bloggins gets to stay employed for three more years and build their pension/transfer value, so Smith challeges their release. CAF policy says you need to meet universality of service to stay, but clearly that's not being applied universally.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Nov 2022)

If only we had a ministry that is SUPPOSED to look at medically disabled veterans.....Oh wait

Cough..VAC...Cough


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Nov 2022)

Furniture said:


> The fact it's not a universally applied accommodation is exactly what could lead to it being challenged. E.g.
> 
> S1 Bloggins gets medically retained because they happen to be posted to a shore unit that is willing to take them, but S1 Smith gets shown the door because their unit needs people who can work shifts/deploy.
> 
> S1 Smith decides its crap they they lose their $70K a year job, but S1 Bloggins gets to stay employed for three more years and build their pension/transfer value, so Smith challeges their release. CAF policy says you need to meet universality of service to stay, but clearly that's not being applied universally.


The decision is made at a national level, not a unit level, and generally is more on the Sgt + rank, from the few I've seen. 

I believe it's pretty rare, but there are plenty of empty billets with things that need doing that someone with 15+ years experience can fill without having to kick down doors, and need someone for there to be longer than a year. Much easier to snipe them into an LCMM or policy job as well if they have some experience doing it as a military posting giving them equivalent experience, where they may not meet the requirement otherwise.

It isn't an appropriate solution for most going on medical release, but can be a great option for some. Just because it's not available for everyone, no reason why we shouldn't do it for some people, especially after investing millions of dollars and a decade or two in developing a fairly unique set of skills and experience for that individual.


----------



## Furniture (2 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> The decision is made at a national level, not a unit level, and generally is more on the Sgt + rank, from the few I've seen.
> 
> I believe it's pretty rare, but there are plenty of empty billets with things that need doing that someone with 15+ years experience can fill without having to kick down doors, and need someone for there to be longer than a year. Much easier to snipe them into an LCMM or policy job as well if they have some experience doing it as a military posting giving them equivalent experience, where they may not meet the requirement otherwise.
> 
> It isn't an appropriate solution for most going on medical release, but can be a great option for some. Just because it's not available for everyone, no reason why we shouldn't do it for some people, especially after investing millions of dollars and a decade or two in developing a fairly unique set of skills and experience for that individual.


The final decision is made at the national level, but if the unit doesn't support it, it will not be approved. 

I've seen, and heard of cases where it has happened with Cpl/S1. It may have been intended for a few rare examples, but it has been extended past that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> The decision is made at a national level, not a unit level, and generally is more on the Sgt + rank, from the few I've seen.
> 
> I believe it's pretty rare, but there are plenty of empty billets with things that need doing that someone with 15+ years experience can fill without having to kick down doors, and need someone for there to be longer than a year. Much easier to snipe them into an LCMM or policy job as well if they have some experience doing it as a military posting giving them equivalent experience, where they may not meet the requirement otherwise.
> 
> It isn't an appropriate solution for most going on medical release, but can be a great option for some. Just because it's not available for everyone, no reason why we shouldn't do it for some people, especially after investing millions of dollars and a decade or two in developing a fairly unique set of skills and experience for that individual.



I've never seen anyone denied.  And it really cuases havoc with our sea to shore ratio at the PO2+ level. 

What I have seen is retentions offered but the retention comes with a posting out of area.  



Furniture said:


> The final decision is made at the national level, but if the unit doesn't support it, it will not be approved.
> 
> I've seen, and heard of cases where it has happened with Cpl/S1. It may have been intended for a few rare examples, but it has been extended past that.



Yup the members unit has to be willing to take them on for the term of the retention.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Nov 2022)

COs can terminate the retention as well.  Member must occupy and REMAR/not be in MMO position IIRC.

“The needs of the service” aren’t always going to match the needs of each member.  

I’d like to see anyone retained who can be AND can be employed properly in the identified position.  It’s not like all trades are Green and everyone is happy about it.  ATR positions come to mind;  not sure how many of them are Pri A or B postings but…


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> COs can terminate the retention as well.  Member must occupy and REMAR/not be in MMO position IIRC.
> 
> “The needs of the service” aren’t always going to match the needs of each member.
> 
> I’d like to see anyone retained who can be AND can be employed properly in the identified position.  It’s not like all trades are Green and everyone is happy about it.  ATR positions come to mind;  not sure how many of them are Pri A or B postings but…


I think it's great for inland postings that are otherwise left empty; some billets have been empty for so long that they are getting re-allocated, but the work still needs to get done so it's burning out the rest of the team. I think, in some limited cases, it's a great short term type thing for 3-4 years to help people transition out of uniform.

Definitely need to be careful about not killing sea/shore ratio, but if one or two people in shore billets clogs it up, I'd suggest the problem isn't the medical retention, but the trade employment.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I think it's great for inland postings that are otherwise left empty; some billets have been empty for so long that they are getting re-allocated, but the work still needs to get done so it's burning out the rest of the team. I think, in some limited cases, it's a great short term type thing for 3-4 years to help people transition out of uniform.
> 
> Definitely need to be careful about not killing sea/shore ratio, but if one or two people in shore billets clogs it up, I'd suggest the problem isn't the medical retention, but the trade employment.



I'd hazard a guess that most retention requests are at the Snr NCM and Officer level.

I'm general there are less of those positions around.  1 or 2 on retention and screw a whole group of people.  I'd also argue there should be no retention positions at operational bases and they should be restricted to static organizations the Likes of Borden, Toronto or Ottawa.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Nov 2022)

We have a few ground positions at our OSSs (Operational Support Sqns) that can fit people unfit traditional trade duty (flying) that can be a great fit for someone who was PCATd.   I know one friend who did 3 years and it actually effectively filled the position with a very knowledgeable mbr (WO), and that took some pressure off the flying Sqns who couldn’t really afford to lose a flying WO.

Because of the drastic “reality” in what might work for RCN, RCAF and C Army and each trade, I think the “each case on its own merits” (or whatever the wording is on Retention in the UoS DAOD is) is working for the CAF writ large.

There are some other ATR positions that would work well for mbrs who can’t deploy, let’s say, and 99% of the time wouldn’t be from certain postings; CFLRS and the RCAF Academy in Borden are good examples.

I was talking an ARAF mbr today who said pretty much anyone in the local Air Reserve Flight who wants max days employment will get it these days, as the Reg Force position shortage is being felt more increasingly.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'd hazard a guess that most retention requests are at the Snr NCM and Officer level.
> 
> I'm general there are less of those positions around.  1 or 2 on retention and screw a whole group of people.  I'd also argue there should be no retention positions at operational bases and they should be restricted to static organizations the Likes of Borden, Toronto or Ottawa.


I suspect it's highly trade dependent; we have a lot of empty NTO/Martech billets at the PO2 - CPO2 rank and Lt(N)-LCdr level in Ottawa. Again, case by case, and needs to include things like trade specific issues.

Some of the smaller trades are a bit crazy; a friend is stuck at MCpl until someone up the food chain retires (triggering a promotion cascade). Those are probably good examples where medical retention in a core trade job may not make sense. Still though, with all the personnel shortages across the CAF, would find it hard to believe that there aren't a lot of empty jobs that couldn't be filled by someone out of trade/under rank.


----------



## kev994 (3 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> We have a few ground positions at our OSSs (Operational Support Sqns) that can fit people unfit traditional trade duty (flying) that can be a great fit for someone who was PCATd.   I know one friend who did 3 years and it actually effectively filled the position with a very knowledgeable mbr (WO), and that took some pressure off the flying Sqns who couldn’t really afford to lose a flying WO.
> 
> Because of the drastic “reality” in what might work for RCN, RCAF and C Army and each trade, I think the “each case on its own merits” (or whatever the wording is on Retention in the UoS DAOD is) is working for the CAF writ large.
> 
> ...


Your buddy should switch to Air Ops Officer if he meets the requirements for it, they’re handing out PLARs to anyone with flight time, I know a LM and FE who just got the whole thing. 
Our ARAF offered everyone max time back in Jun ish.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Nov 2022)

The percentage and number to be retained, by rank and occ, is reviewed in the AMORs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> Your buddy should switch to Air Ops Officer if he meets the requirements for it, they’re handing out PLARs to anyone with flight time, I know a LM and FE who just got the whole thing.
> Our ARAF offered everyone max time back in Jun ish.



Unfortunately, he was released a year or two ago after a 3 year retention.


----------



## TacticalTea (18 Nov 2022)

Reconstitution : cancelled.









						Canadian military to play stronger role in Indo-Pacific region: Trudeau - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The APEC gathering was sidetracked by the news that North Korea had launched a ballistic missile that landed near Japanese waters.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Reconstitution : cancelled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At least the Navy knows where it's going to be spending more of its time over the next couple of years


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Nov 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Reconstitution : cancelled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dimsum (18 Nov 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> At least the Navy and the MH / LRP fleet knows where it's going to be spending more of its time over the next couple of years


----------



## kev994 (18 Nov 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Reconstitution : cancelled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good thing we already spent the effort to cancel all the non-essential stuff like… well, someone, somewhere, with less important stuff to do probably cancelled something? Maybe a golf tournament? Not the charity one though, those are important.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Nov 2022)

It's all just empty platitudes.  

Until their is an earnest investment in recruitment and getting our numbers up to around 100K and then the kit and equipment for them to use its just words.


----------



## Furniture (18 Nov 2022)

I volunteer to go establish a forward station in Singapore, Malaysia, or Thailand...

_Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a thirst_


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2022)

Furniture said:


> I volunteer to go establish a forward station in Singapore, Malaysia, or Thailand...
> 
> _Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
> Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a thirst_



Or more likely 

The Young British Soldier

WHEN the ’arf-made recruity goes out to the East    
’E acts like a babe an’ ’e drinks like a beast,    
An’ ’e wonders because ’e is frequent deceased    
    Ere ’e ’s fit for to serve as a soldier.






						The Young British Soldier. Rudyard Kipling. 1922. Verse: 1885-1918
					

The Young British Soldier. Rudyard Kipling. 1922. Verse: 1885-1918



					www.bartleby.com


----------



## dimsum (18 Nov 2022)

All I'll say is that the...uh...locals didn't necessarily share the same view of UK soldiers and sailors in Asia.


----------



## Furniture (18 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> All I'll say is that the...uh...locals didn't necessarily share the same view of UK soldiers and sailors in Asia.


It would be odd if they did, colonial powers don't tend to be loved in the places they occupy.


----------



## FSTO (18 Nov 2022)

daftandbarmy said:
At least the Navy and the MH / LRP fleet knows where it's going to be spending more of its time over the next couple of years 


Maritime Command? 

Zombie Hellyer wakes up.


----------



## Quirky (18 Nov 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's all just empty platitudes.
> 
> Until their is an earnest investment in recruitment and getting our numbers up to around 100K and then the kit and equipment for them to use its just words.


Don’t forget housing.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Nov 2022)

Furniture said:


> I volunteer to go establish a forward station in Singapore, Malaysia, or Thailand...
> 
> _Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
> Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a thirst_


As I recall, you're a Met tech.

Met techs in Singapore: High 36, low 29, 85 Percent chance of rain, high humidity.

Copy, paste, send out daily.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Nov 2022)

"Stronger" just suggests more than status quo.  How much is status quo?


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> All I'll say is that the...uh...locals didn't necessarily share the same view of UK soldiers and sailors in Asia.



The locals didn't seem to think much of each other for that matter either though.  Somebody had to volunteer to keep the nutmeg supply chain running.


----------



## Furniture (18 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> As I recall, you're a Met tech.
> 
> Met techs in Singapore: High 36, low 29, 85 Percent chance of rain, high humidity.
> 
> Copy, paste, send out daily.


Don't rain on my parade! 🤣


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2022)

Furniture said:


> Don't *rain *on my parade! 🤣


----------



## dimsum (18 Nov 2022)

Furniture said:


> Don't rain on my parade! 🤣


A weather pun?


----------



## dimsum (18 Nov 2022)

FSTO said:


> daftandbarmy said:
> At least the Navy and the MH / LRP fleet knows where it's going to be spending more of its time over the next couple of years
> 
> 
> ...


Next you'll say that MH and LRP fleets should be dark blue


----------



## FSTO (19 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> Next you'll say that MH and LRP fleets should be dark blue
> 
> View attachment 75007


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> Next you'll say that MH and LRP fleets should be dark blue
> 
> View attachment 75007



And EOD should be green?


----------



## dimsum (19 Nov 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> And EOD should be green?


Those crazies could be whatever colour they want.  

Preferably a loud one so I know not to be anywhere near them.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Nov 2022)

dimsum said:


> Those crazies could be whatever colour they want.
> 
> Preferably a loud one so I know not to be anywhere near them.


Saw this one at a fire chief symposium this week...


----------



## AmmoTech90 (19 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Saw this one at a fire chief symposium this week...
> 
> View attachment 75018


Firefighters are great.
They save tons of basements and help eradicate that pesky evidence.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Nov 2022)

AmmoTech90 said:


> Firefighters are great.
> They save tons of basements and help eradicate that pesky evidence.


Plus how many other jobs pay you to sleep?


----------



## dimsum (19 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Plus how many other jobs pay you to sleep?


_Crew rest enters the chat_


----------



## brihard (19 Nov 2022)

AmmoTech90 said:


> Firefighters are great.
> They save tons of basements and help eradicate that pesky evidence.


Can confirm


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Don’t forget housing.


…or the Aqueduct!


----------



## Grimey (23 Nov 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …or the Aqueduct!


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Nov 2022)

Grimey said:


> View attachment 75089


if a thread doesn't get to a Monty Python meme....you're just not doing it right!


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Nov 2022)

Our new military.

Caught a base wide email today saying *please don't be alarmed if you hear or see a Griffon helicopter landing or hovering* over a specified units front lawn.

We're getting trigger warnings for hearing and seeing helicopters on a military base. Suppose we can add that to "warning you might hear blanks or see soldiers doing soldier things" folder


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Our new military.
> 
> Caught a base wide email today saying *please don't be alarmed if you hear or see a Griffon helicopter landing or hovering* over a specified units front lawn.
> 
> We're getting trigger warnings for hearing and seeing helicopters on a military base. Suppose we can add that to "warning you might hear blanks or see soldiers doing soldier things" folder



Base-wide email actually announced they want to increase military presence in our airfields. Canadian airfields. Airfields with flying helicopters. In our bases. In Canada. We did not make this up.


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Our new military.
> 
> Caught a base wide email today saying *please don't be alarmed if you hear or see a Griffon helicopter landing or hovering* over a specified units front lawn.
> 
> We're getting trigger warnings for hearing and seeing helicopters on a military base. Suppose we can add that to "warning you might hear blanks or see soldiers doing soldier things" folder


Meanwhile a few years ago while I was at school the local police would occasionally do CQB practice through our parking lot, and also occasionally blow things up on the EOD area. It was all co-located so no big deal, and we just asked they didn't scratch our cars, and maybe give us a heads up (so we could keep them out of the test areas before we set things on fire).

That seems impossibly soft for the CAF, but guessing there was probably a story behind that one with previous complaints. Won't judge it as there may be someone in the area dealing with PTSD that isn't expecting to see a Griffon in that particular area of the base, and it's easy enough to give folks a heads up so they can WFH or whatever if it's an issue.

Or maybe someone is 10 ply, and this is just genuinely stupid; hard to say.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Our new military.
> 
> Caught a base wide email today saying *please don't be alarmed if you hear or see a Griffon helicopter landing or hovering* over a specified units front lawn.
> 
> We're getting trigger warnings for hearing and seeing helicopters on a military base. Suppose we can add that to "warning you might hear blanks or see soldiers doing soldier things" folder



Can they issue base-wide emails about parades, so people know ahead of time when to put in leave passes or get the appropriate MELs (no ironing, no polishing, arms must not be swung to and fro, etc)?


----------



## CBH99 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Base-wide email actually announced they want to increase military presence in our airfields. Canadian airfields. Airfields with flying helicopters. In our bases. In Canada. We did not make this up.


For me, personally - post of the day!  🤣👍🏻


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Can they issue base-wide emails about parades, so people know ahead of time when to put in leave passes or get the appropriate MELs (no ironing, no polishing, arms must not be swung to and fro, etc)?


Just do the flypast


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Our new military.
> 
> Caught a base wide email today saying *please don't be alarmed if you hear or see a Griffon helicopter landing or hovering* over a specified units front lawn.
> 
> We're getting trigger warnings for hearing and seeing helicopters on a military base. Suppose we can add that to "warning you might hear blanks or see soldiers doing soldier things" folder


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Won't judge it as there may be someone in the area dealing with PTSD that isn't expecting to see a Griffon in that particular area of the base, and it's easy enough to give folks a heads up so they can WFH or whatever if it's an issue.


That can be a legitimate trigger for PTSD, you're right. But If that's the case they should have MELs for appointments only or civilian employment only while they're waiting on a medical release. They shouldn't be on an operational base.

A base wide "don't be alarmed by helicopters"? That's us moving away from being a fighting force IMO.


----------



## dimsum (30 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Our new military.
> 
> Caught a base wide email today saying *please don't be alarmed if you hear or see a Griffon helicopter landing or hovering* over a specified units front lawn.
> 
> We're getting trigger warnings for hearing and seeing helicopters on a military base. Suppose we can add that to "warning you might hear blanks or see soldiers doing soldier things" folder


It's possible that it's aimed at the civilians, not military.  And a base-wide email was the best way to reach all of them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> Just do the flypast



But...but the loud spinny things.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> But...but the loud spinny things.



Just thank Gawd it's not bagpipes on St. Andrews Day (today)


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Nov 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> That can be a legitimate trigger for PTSD, you're right. But If that's the case they should have MELs for appointments only or civilian employment only while they're waiting on a medical release. They shouldn't be on an operational base.
> 
> A base wide "don't be alarmed by helicopters"? That's us moving away from being a fighting force IMO.


I don't disagree, but as @dimsum pointed out, there are civilians etc on base as well, and lots of admin and support buildings which really aren't staffed by the 'fighting force'.

Microwaves also shouldn't have warnings to not put pets in them, but here we are.

Trying to ease into the spirit of xmas and be a more understanding human being to counter the RCN's unchecked and rampant institutional stupidity, which is starting to leave me a shell of a human being. No Navy, you shouldn't ignore every fire safety institution on the planet and wear beards/goatees/ big f* off sideburns with SCBAs.


----------



## Spencer100 (30 Nov 2022)

Microwaves also shouldn't have warnings to not put pets in them, but here we are.

Trying to ease into the spirit of xmas and be a more understanding human being to counter the RCN's unchecked and rampant institutional stupidity, which is starting to leave me a shell of a human being. No Navy, you shouldn't ignore every fire safety institution on the planet and wear beards/goatees/ big f* off sideburns with SCBAs.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## TacticalTea (30 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Trying to ease into the spirit of xmas and be a more understanding human being to counter the RCN's unchecked and rampant institutional stupidity, which is starting to leave me a shell of a human being. No Navy, you shouldn't ignore every fire safety institution on the planet and wear beards/goatees/ big f* off sideburns with SCBAs.


Has that occurred on operational ships yet?


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Nov 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Has that occurred on operational ships yet?


Look at the RCN official ship twitter/FB pages on the facial hair for folks at sea. It's a matter of time, and we have about 15 fires a year, 2-3 near misses a month, and general severity is creeping up as well. And that's a small fleet with not many actual ships, so the per capita rate is pretty high.

With skeleton crews we don't have capacity for people to not be part of the DC if they are on the W&SB, and it's too late to shave when things have hit the fan.

If it ends up with someone getting hurt/killed, anyone involved in signing off on it should be investigated for gross negligence and failing to follow orders (ie CAF safety orders).

Every fire there are a few clean shaven people that lose the seal, have to evacuate the space, and some get exposed to smoke. Even Neo can only dodge so many bullets.


----------



## Spencer100 (30 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Look at the RCN official ship twitter/FB pages on the facial hair for folks at sea. It's a matter of time, and we have about 15 fires a year, 2-3 near misses a month, and general severity is creeping up as well. And that's a small fleet with not many actual ships, so the per capita rate is pretty
> 
> Every fire there are a few clean shaven people that lose the seal, have to evacuate the space, and some get exposed to smoke. Even Neo can only dodge so many bullets.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Nov 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Look at the RCN official ship twitter/FB pages on the facial hair for folks at sea. It's a matter of time, and we have about 15 fires a year, 2-3 near misses a month, and general severity is creeping up as well. And that's a small fleet with not many actual ships, so the per capita rate is pretty high.
> 
> With skeleton crews we don't have capacity for people to not be part of the DC if they are on the W&SB, and it's too late to shave when things have hit the fan.
> 
> ...


Look, the RCN got back the Executive Curl, and now has magic moustache badges to support the fragile egos of MARS NW officers.  Now you want professional leadership and safety onboard as well?


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Nov 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Look, the RCN got back the Executive Curl, and now has magic moustache badges to support the fragile egos of MARS NW officers.  Now you want professional leadership and safety onboard as well?


I'm trying to be an optimist!


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> It's possible that it's aimed at the civilians, not military.  And a base-wide email was the best way to reach all of them.


Petawawa base has had helos buzzing all over it for half a century…if you’re military-ish-enough to get a DWAN email, you’re military-ish-enough not to flake with an overflight, or a LAV grinding by, or a formation of troops rucking along the road, or a black bear loping around the East side of the base towards the river, or, or, or…


----------



## Furniture (1 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Look, the RCN got back the Executive Curl, and now has magic moustache badges to support the fragile egos of MARS NW officers.  Now you want professional leadership and safety onboard as well?


Don't forget the new hats, which are actually pretty awesome.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Look at the RCN official ship twitter/FB pages on the facial hair for folks at sea. It's a matter of time, and we have about 15 fires a year, 2-3 near misses a month, and general severity is creeping up as well. And that's a small fleet with not many actual ships, so the per capita rate is pretty high.
> 
> With skeleton crews we don't have capacity for people to not be part of the DC if they are on the W&SB, and it's too late to shave when things have hit the fan.
> 
> ...



All the more reason to recruit more females into the RCN, IMHO


----------



## ueo (1 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Plus how many other jobs pay you to sleep?


NDHQ and many subordinate HQs


----------



## dimsum (1 Dec 2022)

ueo said:


> NDHQ and many subordinate HQs


…I wish my NDHQ job did that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> …I wish my NDHQ job did that.



Just get one of those napping chits someone was referring to…


----------



## Weinie (14 Dec 2022)

ueo said:


> NDHQ and many subordinate HQs


In my time at NDHQ, I fell asleep once, during a briefing about time management.


----------



## dimsum (14 Dec 2022)

Weinie said:


> In my time at NDHQ, I fell asleep once, during a briefing about time management.


Using time wisely, I see


----------



## ueo (14 Dec 2022)

Weinie said:


> In my time at NDHQ, I fell asleep once, during a briefing about time management.


Woke up several APS's later.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2022)

ueo said:


> Woke up several APS's later.


Promote ahead of peers.


----------



## kratz (14 Dec 2022)

ueo said:


> Woke up several APS's later.



"This is the way" - the Mandalorian.


----------



## stoker dave (14 Dec 2022)

While I am a (very far) outsider looking in, I can see an intersection between the 'reconstitution' and the Arbour report recommendations.  The time is ripe for fundamental, systemic change throughout CAF.    Whether such change occurs or is effective remains to be seen.


----------



## Remius (14 Dec 2022)

stoker dave said:


> While I am a (very far) outsider looking in, I can see an intersection between the 'reconstitution' and the Arbour report recommendations.  The time is ripe for fundamental, systemic change throughout CAF.    Whether such change occurs or is effective remains to be seen.


Agreed but I hope that they realise that cultural change can’t really happen without structural change.  Otherwise we’ll keep treading water (or sink) on both.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Dec 2022)

Remius said:


> Agreed but I hope that they realise that cultural change can’t really happen without structural change.  Otherwise we’ll keep treading water (or sink) on both.



Not always true. Lots of work and research has gone into this subject, but clearly not by the CAF.

Culture change means leaders changing the way they show up and collaborate, as the highest priority, which is also frequently the hardest thing to do. In the list of seven elements mentioned below, for example, there is no mention of 'get the CFO to hand you another billion dollars'.

For a senior leader, like our Army Commander, to say 'I need more stuff or I can't change culture' should get him a set of walking papers, which would happen to any CEO that said the same thing. Again, it speaks to some glaring gaps in the organizational leadership knowledge amongst our most senior leaders and their teams:

Why Every Executive Should Be Focusing on Culture Change Now​To make transformation a reality in their businesses post-pandemic, leaders must build a strong culture to support it.

As the global community emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, business leaders must lay the foundation for their organizations to thrive in a very different world. The pandemic accelerated three interlinked types of transformation affecting every industry: the adoption of digital technologies, the development of new business models, and the implementation of new ways of working. Most companies are now engaged in one or more of these types of transformation. Businesses that aren’t — whether because they have ignored the signals or have failed to adapt quickly enough — risk becoming obsolete.

While most executives recognize the transformation imperative, far fewer understand the essential connection between business transformation and culture change. Companies cannot realize the true potential of digital transformation, embrace new business models, or implement new ways of working without supporting changes in organizational behaviors and norms. A recent study by Boston Consulting Group found that companies that focused on culture were five times more likely to achieve breakthrough results in their digital transformation initiatives than those that didn’t.

Focusing on culture change also can help companies that have not yet embarked on transformation journeys. An adaptive culture provides a foundation for transformation. It also helps organizations overcome cultural fragmentation due to the incomplete integration of acquisitions or a legacy of growth across multiple geographies.

Leaders also need to understand that culture is dynamic and that change will happen in their organizations even if they do nothing to guide it. Employee values, mindset, and behaviors have evolved rapidly in the past year. These changes may or may not be the ones your organization needs, or necessary changes may not be progressing at the right pace.

For these reasons, leaders must take a proactive approach to build the right culture now and avoid the need to reshape culture in parallel with large-scale organizational transformation.

All companies are different, so leaders must adjust for the specific contexts in which their organizations operate. However, we also see a high degree of consistency in the elements of culture required to achieve the full potential of organizational transformations, whether digital or driven by changing business models or new ways of working.

At the risk of promoting a “one best way,” we have identified seven elements of adaptive culture that we consistently see in businesses that have transformed successfully. (See “The Seven Elements of Adaptive Culture.”) Together, they provide the cultural foundation necessary to support rapid adaptation, innovation, and organizational resilience.

The Seven Elements of Adaptive Culture​
*Customer centricity:* Understanding and prioritizing the needs of customers rather than focusing on products or profit.
*Ecosystem focus:* Prioritizing the well-being of the entire multiorganizational system and not just the company.
*Analytical orientation:* Fully embracing the power of data and analytics in decision-making rather than relying only on experience or judgment.
*Collaborative reflex:* Proactively engaging in cross-organizational collaboration and teamwork rather than working in silos.
*Bias to action:* Valuing speed, not risk minimization, over perfection.
*Learning mindset:* Engaging in experimentation and rapid learning.
*Leader as enabler:* Empowering and energizing people while holding them accountable.









						Why Every Executive Should Be Focusing on Culture Change Now
					

Businesses that don’t understand the connection between business transformation and culture change risk obsolescence.




					sloanreview.mit.edu


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Dec 2022)

@daftandbarmy One of the problems is that there are a lot of common business approaches trying to get ported into DND without looking to see if the context makes sense, and if they need to adopt the strategy to make it work.

I think that makes some initiatives difficult/impractical to implement, as they don't take into account what we actually do, and are meant for normal businesses where the main point is to make money.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> @daftandbarmy One of the problems is that there are a lot of common business approaches trying to get ported into DND without looking to see if the context makes sense, and if they need to adopt the strategy to make it work.
> 
> I think that makes some initiatives difficult/impractical to implement, as they don't take into account what we actually do, and are meant for normal businesses where the main point is to make money.



Because DND/CAF humans are different from other humans, right?


----------



## Fabius (14 Dec 2022)

The CAF as a whole could improve the last three points greatly. 
As long as reconstitution remains a number 1 priority along with readiness and modernization I don’t expect much.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Dec 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Because DND/CAF humans are different from other humans, right?


No, but a customer centrict approach focused on increasing profits doesn't really make sense. And some aspects of the culture are unique to militaries because we fundamentally do different things, and if you only consider it from the lens of what makes sense for a business you can drop important aspects of why it works in one context but not in another.

Screws and bolts both turn, but it's better to use the right tool. 

Relevant example, the RCN is trying to implement commercial classification standards, while giving the RCN the ability to disregard it as long as they 'accept the risk', with no ability for the technical side to drop the hammer.

Classification works on commercial ships because they can order things fixed or the ship will lose insurance and not allowed to leave the harbour. We're adopting the rules without those controls, and basically the defects keep piling up with no checks and balances as long as there are individual risk assessments. We don't do big picture risk assessments, and if anyone thinks they understand the cumulative risk of 1500+ defects, missed maintenance routines and broken things per ship, they are kidding themselves.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Promote ahead of peers.


Weinie has always been out standing in his field. 😉


----------



## Weinie (14 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Weinie has always been out standing in his field. 😉


And looking around for (and finding) fellow fools.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Weinie has always been out standing in his field. 😉


I know the type...


----------



## Spencer100 (14 Dec 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Not always true. Lots of work and research has gone into this subject, but clearly not by the CAF.
> 
> Culture change means leaders changing the way they show up and collaborate, as the highest priority, which is also frequently the hardest thing to do. In the list of seven elements mentioned below, for example, there is no mention of 'get the CFO to hand you another billion dollars'.
> 
> ...


I would warn the current Business Management trends like DEI or "culture change" are about to peak.  The coming economic storm is going to run head first into the modern management culture.    Companies like Blackrock and their CEO Fink are going to be in a world of hurt.  Their DEI culture cascade though the S&P is not getting them the returns they have hoped for.  

In an org like the CAF should not be using business management ideas. Take Just in Time for logistics in a military setting that's not going work.  Using technology to move material to the end user is a good thing.  Not having warehouses of "war" stock is not.  etc.

Also I think embracing the "soft" type HR management styles are not always a good thing for the military.....I have always thought the Canadian style of the CAF as a "job" not as something seen even greater a culture mistake by the government.  (that's my belief but not my main point here) I hated the ads on the bus to the armories in the 80's "looking some money get a job in the CF" When you see ads on American TV We do more before 8:00 am in the morning than.....etc.   The point is in a organization that "employees" have the ultimate unlimited liability clause things are different than the job at the bank or the factory.


----------



## Weinie (14 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> I know the type...


----------



## Weinie (14 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> I know the type...


----------



## Weinie (14 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> I know the type...


Pompous ass.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I would warn the current Business Management trends like DEI or "culture change" are about to peak.  The coming economic storm is going to run head first into the modern management culture.    Companies like Blackrock and their CEO Fink are going to be in a world of hurt.  Their DEI culture cascade though the S&P is not getting them the returns they have hoped for.
> 
> *In an org like the CAF should not be using business management ideas. *



Wouldn't it be great if the CAF actually understood what those ideas were all about first, before discarding them?

OTOH....

I recall attempting to introduce some simple process mapping into an annual planning process with a HQ group. This is something widely practised, and valued, in the public and private sectors outside the CAF.

None of them had ever seen it or experienced it before, and this was literally just using post it notes and a sharpie pen to map out a sequence of activities on a white board and get everyone involved in playing with a few options.

They regarded it as some kind of alien black magic, immediately discarded the approach, and carried on with a pretty dysfunctional planning meeting where the highest rank just laid the law down. 

Of course, the result included the usual incoherent PPT slide with a badly done Gantt chart. 

"Invented by Henri Gantt" I tired to interject, but to no avail


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Dec 2022)

We've done a lot of process mapping, and generally found there is a 'theoretical process' a 'process that works' and then the 'what we are supposed to be doing' process.

Pretty typical for the process development people to not talk to the user base, or if they do, use a specific user as a model for the rest, and doesn't work. They also frequently seem to just talk to the big giant heads who don't use the processes when developing improvement plans, so we've gotten an onion of bureaucratic inefficiencies layered all over the place over the 20 years I've seen of 'strategic initiatives'. Usually all done with no consideration for the associated LOE or introduction of net new work.

I showed it to one of our lean six sigma black belt contractors who was working on something else as a joke at one point, but after he recovered, he understood why things took so long, and why I hated life some days. If you process plan looks like a rube goldberg machine it's probably not a great indication. Initially he thought I had made it up and it was a joke, but no, the 11x14 multipage process map in size 8 font was the actual process.


----------



## CICOPS (14 Dec 2022)

> I showed it to one of our lean six sigma black belt contractors who was working on something else as a joke at one point, but after he recovered, he understood why things took so long, and why I hated life some days. If you process plan looks like a rube goldberg machine it's probably not a great indication. Initially he thought I had made it up and it was a joke, but no, the 11x14 multipage process map in size 8 font was the actual process.



So you have trimmed the fat out of the process?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2022)

The last "optimization" exercise I was consulted took a process from about 180 to 160 days.

The majority of that time savings was realized by moving 30 days outside the process.  So comparing apples to apples, the optimization added roughly two weeks to the process.


----------



## FJAG (15 Dec 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> "Invented by Henri Gantt" I tired to interject, but to no avail


You should instead have asked where the critical path was. Betcha you would have gotten a blank stare.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> You should instead have asked where the critical path was. Betcha you would have gotten a blank stare.
> 
> 🍻



Oh, they were critical alright. 

And mostly unemployed, except for their Class A jobs


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Dec 2022)

CICOPS said:


> So you have trimmed the fat out of the process?


lol, no. The process weenies have since added on new 'process improvements' on top of that. And TBS added the SBCA process (sustainment business case analysis (?))

I don't think 'streamlining' means what they think it means.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> We've done a lot of process mapping, and generally found there is a 'theoretical process' a 'process that works' and then the 'what we are supposed to be doing' process.
> 
> Pretty typical for the process development people to not talk to the user base, or if they do, use a specific user as a model for the rest, and doesn't work. They also frequently seem to just talk to the big giant heads who don't use the processes when developing improvement plans, so we've gotten an onion of bureaucratic inefficiencies layered all over the place over the 20 years I've seen of 'strategic initiatives'. Usually all done with no consideration for the associated LOE or introduction of net new work.
> 
> I showed it to one of our lean six sigma black belt contractors who was working on something else as a joke at one point, but after he recovered, he understood why things took so long, and why I hated life some days. If you process plan looks like a rube goldberg machine it's probably not a great indication. Initially he thought I had made it up and it was a joke, but no, the 11x14 multipage process map in size 8 font was the actual process.


Bah, that's nothing. The proposed business process dreamed up for us by a "tiger team from Ottawa" spanned about 15' of wall in our office, when laid out on 11"x17" paper. A one page decision matrix went to 25 pages. Thankfully it died when the CPC came in.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (15 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> No, but a customer centrict approach focused on increasing profits doesn't really make sense. And some aspects of the culture are unique to militaries because we fundamentally do different things, and if you only consider it from the lens of what makes sense for a business you can drop important aspects of why it works in one context but not in another.
> 
> Screws and bolts both turn, but it's better to use the right tool.
> 
> ...



Its like all things government, they have to give themselves a out, but there is also sometimes justification. For example the CAF doesn't have to follow speed limits. We are ordered to follow speed limits, but we could also order ourselves to disregard them as needed, such as war time.

In a war we may need to disregard proper safety standards because the risk of sailing not up to spec is lower than the strategic impact of not having that ship in the fight. That being said in peace time with no real reason to disregard the risk other than we refuse to put the money needed into the ship, it is a weak justification for the CoC. Not to mention if/when it goes wrong I doubt the CoC will fall on their sword for it.

We can't afford to box ourselves into a bunch of self inflicted restrictions in case of the event we actually have reasonable justification to ignore it. That being said we need to have the organizational fortitude to make ourselves follow the guidelines when we can't reasonably justify ignoring them instead of taking the easy way out.

Customer centric just means making sure the customer (i.e. government) gets what they need. Where I work as a maintenance machinist my customer is the place I am working. It isn't so much about cost as making sure the product we provide them is what they need to get that equipment running whether or not it 100% matches the print. Ours as the CAF is ensure the crown is getting what they need out of us for the missions they require of us.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Dec 2022)

But in very real terms, beating the hell out of ships in peace time and falling below basic commercial standards means that they are falling apart when wartime kicks in that you can't possibly fix in time to be effective. We definitely need to have flexibility, but should also not pull that card out everytime someone wants to do a fishpat or other peace time bit of sailing around.

The invasion of UKR is a perfect example, but similarly happened when things were going on in Syria and we had ships just far enough offshore to be in international water (but still within weapons range for shore batteries). In each case the ships deploy with things below SOLAS, which directly impacts the battle damage recoverability (which is another step above and beyond basic safety). That's not even considering basic combat capabilties like CBRN, and we were sitting off Syria a month after they gassed their own citizens with plastic trunking and duct tape holding it together and hoping for the best, if you want a concrete example of how systematic degradation of basic capabilities impacted getting a deployed HR ship up to real combatant capability. And because it's so normalized, when we sent back an OPDEF with pictures, people just shrugged.

We are surging continually just to do basic sailing, so there is no resiliency left to fall back on. I think if one of them took battle damage in real combat, we would lose ships and have a lot more injured/dead as a result, where we may have otherwise been able to contain it and limp back home.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (15 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> But in very real terms, beating the hell out of ships in peace time and falling below basic commercial standards means that they are falling apart when wartime kicks in that you can't possibly fix in time to be effective. We definitely need to have flexibility, but should also not pull that card out everytime someone wants to do a fishpat or other peace time bit of sailing around.
> 
> The invasion of UKR is a perfect example, but similarly happened when things were going on in Syria and we had ships just far enough offshore to be in international water (but still within weapons range for shore batteries). In each case the ships deploy with things below SOLAS, which directly impacts the battle damage recoverability (which is another step above and beyond basic safety). That's not even considering basic combat capabilties like CBRN, and we were sitting off Syria a month after they gassed their own citizens with plastic trunking and duct tape holding it together and hoping for the best, if you want a concrete example of how systematic degradation of basic capabilities impacted getting a deployed HR ship up to real combatant capability. And because it's so normalized, when we sent back an OPDEF with pictures, people just shrugged.
> 
> We are surging continually just to do basic sailing, so there is no resiliency left to fall back on. I think if one of them took battle damage in real combat, we would lose ships and have a lot more injured/dead as a result, where we may have otherwise been able to contain it and limp back home.


100% which is why we need to have the option to disregard the standards, but the fortitude not to unless it is legitimately required. And if we so choose to disregard them, we need to justify that action. 

We have a 'yes man' culture in the CAF. People who dare to speak out against the company line are put in the corner, well those who say everything is fine and there is no issue get promoted and moved higher. Best example of this failing us hard I can think of being the Airborne regiment where CO 1 said no they weren't ready, was removed from command and CO 2 said it was good to go with all of us knowing the fallout of that poor decision.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Dec 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> 100% which is why we need to have the option to disregard the standards, but the fortitude not to unless it is legitimately required. And if we so choose to disregard them, we need to justify that action.
> 
> We have a* 'yes man person' *culture in the CAF. People who dare to speak out against the company line are put in the corner, well those who say everything is fine and there is no issue get promoted and moved higher. Best example of this failing us hard I can think of being the Airborne regiment where CO 1 said no they weren't ready, was removed from command and CO 2 said it was good to go with all of us knowing the fallout of that poor decision.



There, FTFY


----------



## btrudy (15 Dec 2022)

"Ready Aye Ready" is destroying the Navy, because we'll move heaven and earth to get ships to sea, regardless of how inconsequential the task nor how dire the impact on material and personnel.

Because we're not actually ready. We just go anyways.


----------



## stoker dave (16 Dec 2022)

btrudy said:


> "Ready Aye Ready" is destroying the Navy, because we'll move heaven and earth to get ships to sea, regardless of how inconsequential the task nor how dire the impact on material and personnel.
> 
> Because we're not actually ready. We just go anyways.


I was trained as a Marine Systems Engineering Officer.  My memory is that the technical authority for ship engineering resides in NDHQ under what was called Director General Maritime Engineering and Maintenance (I expect names have changed but roles probably haven't changed much).  DGMEM was ultimately responsible for the mechanical fitness of the ships.  

The people posting here on the front end continuously point out substantial deficiencies yet the ships still sail (from what I understand).  

It should be DGMEM speaking up and making things right.  Has that position lost its authority?  Is DGMEM just afraid to speak up?   

Perspective from someone in that group would be helpful.


----------



## Lumber (16 Dec 2022)

stoker dave said:


> I was trained as a Marine Systems Engineering Officer.  My memory is that the technical authority for ship engineering resides in NDHQ under what was called Director General Maritime Engineering and Maintenance (I expect names have changed but roles probably haven't changed much).  DGMEM was ultimately responsible for the mechanical fitness of the ships.
> 
> The people posting here on the front end continuously point out substantial deficiencies yet the ships still sail (from what I understand).
> 
> ...


It's _Naval_ Engineering and Maintenance now, but it's their subunit, Fleet Technical Authority (FTA) that produces a risk assessment based on the technical state of the ship. However, FTA just produces a risk _assessment _and recommendation. Ultimately it's the line chain of command that decides whether or not to assume the risk. Who actually owns the risk at which points/level of risk, I'm not sure, but I've seen waivers be approved by both the Fleet Commander and the Formation Commander.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> But in very real terms, beating the hell out of ships in peace time and falling below basic commercial standards means that they are falling apart when wartime kicks in that you can't possibly fix in time to be effective. We definitely need to have flexibility, but should also not pull that card out everytime someone wants to do a fishpat or other peace time bit of sailing around.
> 
> The invasion of UKR is a perfect example, but similarly happened when things were going on in Syria and we had ships just far enough offshore to be in international water (but still within weapons range for shore batteries). In each case the ships deploy with things below SOLAS, which directly impacts the battle damage recoverability (which is another step above and beyond basic safety). That's not even considering basic combat capabilties like CBRN, and we were sitting off Syria a month after they gassed their own citizens with plastic trunking and duct tape holding it together and hoping for the best, if you want a concrete example of how systematic degradation of basic capabilities impacted getting a deployed HR ship up to real combatant capability. And because it's so normalized, when we sent back an OPDEF with pictures, people just shrugged.
> 
> We are surging continually just to do basic sailing, so there is no resiliency left to fall back on. I think if one of them took battle damage in real combat, we would lose ships and have a lot more injured/dead as a result, where we may have otherwise been able to contain it and limp back home.


Not to mention we have the shipyards to do the refit work. I see a post that Davie did a good job on a refit as did VSY out here on the WestCoast. We just need the will and money to maintain them.


----------

