# 09/10 Budget Impact on PRes - Unit stand-downs, Class B Freeze, and so on!



## corp_express

Where the hell did this class B employment freeze come from and why the hell were we given no warning.
I hope whoever thought this up is forced to feed their family, and pay their mortgage with no pay check for a month!

We have class B/A positions that are ESTABLISHED up for renewal where people can't sign their contracts.  Do people not realize the ramifications of having a class B contract not renewed without warning?!?!?  What ever happened to getting some notice before being told to pack up.   

Why the hell would a freeze apply to contracts that are already in motion!
Positions that are SOURCED, COMPETITIONED, and Pers Selected...  I really like seeing my buddies getting told to show up for work on a class B they were selected for and having them actually only work on class A.

What about their benefits, pension time, child care and health care... 

Is the army broke or something...  if that's the case I opt that we cut that damned Maple Leaf Magazine that poisons the bathroom stalls of every one of our buildings before we put the financial well being of our soldiers on ice to decide which jobs to cut.

Shame on whoever thinks it is a game to play with peoples lively hoods. This displays poor management at the highest of levels.


----------



## dangerboy

In the O group we got today we were told that the army is cutting around $57 million and LFWA about $23.  This is affecting us at the training centre as right now we can't get demo troops for anything as they don't have the class B positions available.


----------



## Roy Harding

Welcome to the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

I'm sure the taste it leaves in your mouth is just as bitter as it was back then.

Can someone who's plugged in post a link to a CANFORGEN or CANLANDGEN?  (Even if it's only available on the DIN, and therefore not to me, it may be helpful to others who are directly affected).


----------



## Occam

Can someone enlighten those of us who are out of the office on leave?  Is this Army-wide, or CF-wide?


----------



## dangerboy

Roy, just looked there is no CANFORGEN or CANLANDGEN out about this.


----------



## dapaterson

In the Army, each LFA makes decisions about what to cut / stop / restrict to stay within their funding envelope.

This year, the NDHQ-approval of budgets did not occur until mid-August (with the fiscal year starting in April).  This means that in some cases plans went forward, to learn four months into the year that they are not funded.  Thus mitigation measures are necessary - the Army gets less than planned, meaning the Areas get less, and so on down the chain of command.

If the numbers cited are correct, and the Army is "short" $57M, that would be less than 4% of the Army's budget (note that the Army budget does not pay Reg F pay - that's managed centrally for the CF.)  Keep in mind that "short" is relative to Army demand; that $57M (I don't have figures handy to confirm that number - even if I did, this is not a forum to disclose such numbers) could still mean the Army has more money than last year, just allocated to different priorities.

Unfortunately, the only two speeds the Army seems to know are full out and full stop.  It's difficult to steer any vehicle when you limit yourself to two speeds; the Army and its subordinate HQs need to do a better job of controlling appetite and having real mitigation strategies in place when funding does not materialize.

(And here's betting that funds will be found during the last 2-3 months of the year as various commanders release their funding reserves, and the Army ends the fiscal year with unexpended funds.  But that's another issue).


----------



## Michael OLeary

With no official source to reference, the bits and pieces I have seen/heard seem to imply that there have been cuts (this we know), and there may be more cuts (tbc, of course).  This started after many op plans and related budgets were approved, so with little or no warning at all in trenches.  The freeze appears (to me) to be part of a collective holding of breath while the Army waits to see how much pain is coming.  If Class "B" contracts are considered one possible area of savings, that may be to avoid the risk of signing those contracts and being forced to reduce elsewhere - like losing an even larger share of training budgets which have already taken a hit.


----------



## McG

corp_express said:
			
		

> Where the hell did this class B employment freeze come from and why the hell were we given no warning.
> I hope whoever thought this up is forced to feed their family, and pay their mortgage with no pay check for a month!


Nearly the same thing has happened with civilian employment.  No positions can be staffed without CLS approval (so, no new positions & no replacing people as they leave positions).


----------



## cbt arms sub tech

Will this be effective immediately, thinking about current domestic op's such as OP Podium, can someone provide some input.....


----------



## McG

PODIUM is a Canada Command operation and would not be subject to LFC hiring freezes.  Different bosses.


----------



## cbt arms sub tech

Thank you, definitely sounds like this will be effecting alot of folk out there, especially reserve unit operations, where alot of folk are employed with the dnd.....


----------



## McG

cbt arms sub tech said:
			
		

> ... where alot of folk are employed with the dnd.....


Keep in mind that this thread states just Army and not the whole of DND.  The Air Force, Navy, .COMS and ADMs don't take marching orders on hiring (or not) from CLS.


----------



## corp_express

Apparantly, 

This was effective Aug 23rd...  even though, we only found out about it Sep 1st... after I terminated a class b contract to move to a new position, I showed up to sign a contract...  and yea about that. 
They want to put a freeze...?   Sure, do it 30 days after my contract start date. Let me at least find a job at McDonald's or something. 

Like I said...  I hope the person who initiated this, can expect work Oct 1st and gets told that his position no longer exists when he shows up to work.

We get an economic adjustment but at the same time we cut 1000 jobs... 
Such a positive gain.


----------



## PuckChaser

From what I've heard there was over 1,000 positions OVER what should be allotted for Cl B employment. The issue (and I've seen it happen), is people near their 20 or 25 find a place they like to work at, and don't want to get posted. They get in good with the pers that create Cl B positions, or even request that there be a Cl B created at X rank level to "help" them out. Once the position is created, they pull pin and fill the spot themselves. Now they make pension money plus Cl B money and can stay in that job for another 15 years because theres no accountability for Cl Bs. I'm sure theres a whole lot of positions that are getting axed by this freeze that are actually required, but a lot that are patronage positions are getting stopped too.


----------



## corp_express

Regardless...   Isn't there a moral obligation somewhere to employ people for 30 days. Even if their job gets axed.

30 days notice...  fine I'll take that,  but having it caught in a freeze with the possibilty of termination...  that is a different story.


----------



## Grunt_031

We too are facing cuts at work (DND Civ). Spending and hire freeze. No parts unless it is breakdown maintenance or a priority job. We have no hiring and no replacement of pers leaving. This is forcasted until next FY.

We just had a half dozen personnel told on Fri that they were beginning extended on their contracts from Aug 09 to Mar 10 and then told on Monday sorry we will have to let you go end Sep because there is no money.


----------



## Haggis

Before everyone starts headhunting it would be wise and prudent to remember a few things:

1. All Class B positions are subject to funding availaibilty.  Even existing contracts can be terminated if the funding runs out or is cut (i.e. on multi-year projects). If, as it appears in this case, a position is sourced and staffed with no funding available, then the member to be employed in that position may not be paid.  If a member hasn't yet signed an SOU, then there is no requirement for the member to report for work or for the CF to pay that member.  If an SOU has been signed, then it is a contract between the member and the CF and the member must be paid.

2.  The CF (and therefore the Army) gets it's funding from Treasury Board.  When funding is cut, it is Treasury Board that initiates the process by clawing back money from DND and the CF.  The CF is then forced to make hard choices to meet TB demands.

3.  The number of Reservists on full time (Class B and C) service is at an all time high and is also, quite frankly unsustainable.  There are many reasons for this which are not apparent to those on the Armoury floor.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> From what I've heard there was over 1,000 positions OVER what should be allotted for Cl B employment. The issue (and I've seen it happen), is people near their 20 or 25 find a place they like to work at, and don't want to get posted. They get in good with the pers that create Cl B positions, or even request that there be a Cl B created at X rank level to "help" them out. Once the position is created, they pull pin and fill the spot themselves. Now they make pension money plus Cl B money and can stay in that job for another 15 years because theres no accountability for Cl Bs. I'm sure theres a whole lot of positions that are getting axed by this freeze that are actually required, but a lot that are patronage positions are getting stopped too.



This does happen.  There are, for example, 61 Class B CWO/CPO1 in NDHQ above the establishment.  As noted there are reasons for this.  Some good.  Some "not so good".


----------



## old fart

The Regular Force is still recruiting...I believe this is the website:

http://www.forces.ca/

Have a good one...


----------



## corp_express

Oh, well this case is specific...  I'm not as chuffed about my case as I might sound.

I'm more concerned for the seven guys that are on revolving 365 day contracts.
Who all of a sudden are off contract. No warning whatsoever, contract not renewed.

At the end of the day, the majority of these positions, are required "RQ, OPS NCO, FIN CLERK...." most likely these will be approved,  but why throw in a break in service and destroy the consecutive months of employment just for kicks and giggles.

You are right... Legally, and by the book, we all havn't signed SOU's so there is no obligation to pay us...  ahh ok, it's all too clear now. I guess, when these positions become approved we should all just walk away and let the the unit administrate itself...?


----------



## Infanteer

old fart said:
			
		

> The Regular Force is still recruiting...I believe this is the website:
> 
> http://www.forces.ca/
> 
> Have a good one...



Good point - although 30 days would be nice, it would also assume that Class B jobs are held in perpetuity;

With regards to funding and Class B positions, perhaps there is a bit of "reigning in" being done?  For reservists who want to work in the Army full time, is the option to sign a regular force contract being considered as an option?


----------



## FDO

I'm with Old Fart. If you want a full time military job with a better than average chance that you will have work go RegF. From what I understand (I may be misinformed) about Cl B contracts they are subject to termination with 30 days notice. That goes for the member who wants to quit.


----------



## NL_engineer

Haggis said:
			
		

> 3.  The number of Reservists on full time (Class B and C) service is at an all time high and is also, quite frankly unsustainable.  There are many reasons for this which are not apparent to those on the Armoury floor.



aren't class C reservist's part of the Reg force pay system?


----------



## old fart

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> aren't class C reservist's part of the Reg force pay system?



Not sure what you are implying here.

A Reservists remains a reservist the only difference is the type of contract... with most Class C contracts that comes with a liability not inherent in Class A and Class B service...and not as easy to walk away from.  

Although certainly some reservists have Class C contracts and are managing to serve on this side of the pond.


----------



## Harris

While I agree that there are a substantial number of Class B posns out there, I challenge the "system" to find a better way of filling many of them otherwise.  For example we were tasked with standing up a new HQ (3 Operational Support Group) in Bedford, and we were given 7 Reg force posns to help staff it.  6 of the 7 are no-fill from the Reg force.  So in a HQ that is meant to start off with approx 14 pers, currently we're at 4 pers.  How do you fix that directive without using Class B pers?


----------



## PuckChaser

old fart said:
			
		

> Not sure what you are implying here.
> 
> A Reservists remains a reservist the only difference is the type of contract... with most Class C contracts that comes with a liability not inherent in Class A and Class B service...and not as easy to walk away from.
> 
> Although certainly some reservists have Class C contracts and are managing to serve on this side of the pond.



Cl C money is from a different budget than Cl A/B. 

I'm going to have to disagree with your wording... we're all on the same side of the pond Res and Reg, but that's not what this discussion is about.

Every section of the Army is making due with less and less people, and the Reg F units were using Cl B to fill those spots. I really don't see this freeze lasting for a long period of time. Just enough to make sure that the CL B positions that are out there (HQ staff, _some_ Res unit daystaff positions, etc) are actually required for day to day operations, and aren't a way to allow your buddy to double dip.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

corp_express said:
			
		

> Regardless...   Isn't there a moral obligation somewhere to employ people for 30 days. Even if their job gets axed.
> 
> 30 days notice...  fine I'll take that,  but having it caught in a freeze with the possibilty of termination...  that is a different story.



No there's not. On civie street you'd be lucky to get two weeks notice with pay. Many private firms going through hard times have employees show up for work to find the gate padlocked by the bailiff and the company bankrupt. No benefits, no pension, and many have personal stuff like tools inside that can't be gotten at. No, your certainly not taking the hit like they do outside.

Now, I'll say it because no one else is. No one guaranteed you a job. It's why you have contracts. 6 month, a year, two years, whatever, but a contract. That implies that at the end of the contract, your services may no longer be required and there won't be an extention. People that cruise the B system for longer than the temporary job it was set up to be are damn lucky the B system is so corrupt. The same people get contracted time after time, without the bidding process happening. If it does happen it's often written and skewed to the point that only the incumbent is selectable. Cl B pers also seem to have the inside handle on any good positions coming up well before anyone looking to break that door even find out about it. The system is rife with favouritism and nepotism. It is meant to help a certain institution get over a small temporay hump in it's operations. However, those organization got lazy and fat.....and used to the idea of cheap labour. It also wasn't meant to provide careers for those that want all the benefits of the Reg force without the liability having to deploy or get posted.

If you want a career in the Service, do a Component Transfer and go Reg. As for having the rug yanked out from under you, there may be some fine print you missed. If not, redress it. Lots of companies sign contracts only to find the project cancelled. There is usually a penalty, but if the project company is bankrupt, nobody is getting anything.

Personally, I think it about time the Reg force had to put their own people into the positions they created. They've had the best of both worlds too long. Times are tough all over this country. No one is owed a living.


----------



## old fart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Cl C money is from a different budget than Cl A/B.
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with your wording... we're all on the same side of the pond Res and Reg, but that's not what this discussion is about.
> 
> Every section of the Army is making due with less and less people, and the Reg F units were using Cl B to fill those spots. I really don't see this freeze lasting for a long period of time. Just enough to make sure that the CL B positions that are out there (HQ staff, _some_ Res unit daystaff positions, etc) are actually required for day to day operations, and aren't a way to allow your buddy to double dip.



If your implying that a Reserve liability is the same as that of a Regular Force member "on this side of the pond"...the only place that is the case in clinical terms is within a conflict area.....not as easy to "just walk away" as Corps Express noted of course in relation to service; I am aware he was meaning service within Canada.

I find it hard to believe that we are expanding the Reserves given apparent budgetary constraints.  My solution to all this is the opposite.

And again, the Reg Force door remains open.


----------



## X-mo-1979

recceguy said:
			
		

> No there's not. On civie street you'd be lucky to get two weeks notice with pay. Many private firms going through hard times have employees show up for work to find the gate padlocked by the bailiff and the company bankrupt. No benefits, no pension, and many have personal stuff like tools inside that can't be gotten at. No, your certainly not taking the hit like they do outside.
> 
> Now, I'll say it because no one else is. No one guaranteed you a job. It's why you have contracts. 6 month, a year, two years, whatever, but a contract. That implies that at the end of the contract, your services may no longer be required and there won't be an extention. People that cruise the B system for longer than the temporary job it was set up to be are damn lucky the B system is so corrupt. The same people get contracted time after time, without the bidding process happening. If it does happen it's often written and skewed to the point that only the incumbent is selectable. Cl B pers also seem to have the inside handle on any good positions coming up well before anyone looking to break that door even find out about it. The system is rife with favouritism and nepotism. It is meant to help a certain institution get over a small temporay hump in it's operations. However, those organization got lazy and fat.....and used to the idea of cheap labour. It also wasn't meant to provide careers for those that want all the benefits of the Reg force without the liability having to deploy or get posted.
> 
> If you want a career in the Service, do a Component Transfer and go Reg. As for having the rug yanked out from under you, there may be some fine print you missed. If not, redress it. Lots of companies sign contracts only to find the project cancelled. There is usually a penalty, but if the project company is bankrupt, nobody is getting anything.
> 
> Personally, I think it about time the Reg force had to put their own people into the positions they created. They've had the best of both worlds too long. Times are tough all over this country. No one is owed a living.



Good insight. 

corp_express, I'm on contract till 2020.Is the regular force be something you would do for full time work?


----------



## old fart

Recceguy...agree with your closing comments to a degree.  

What I would advocate given half a chance is zero Regular Force in a Reserve unit.  

A reserve unit would stand or fall on its own merits as would the leadership within.

It would certainly help in any subsequent Reserve unit rationalization.


----------



## Dog

Enough of the Reserve versus Reg argument... it's gotten so old.

My question is this: for those Reservists on Class B contract for workup for TF1-10, what does that mean to them?


----------



## Roy Harding

recceguy said:
			
		

> No there's not. On civie street you'd be lucky to get two weeks notice with pay. Many private firms going through hard times have employees show up for work to find the gate padlocked by the bailiff and the company bankrupt. No benefits, no pension, and many have personal stuff like tools inside that can't be gotten at. No, your certainly not taking the hit like they do outside.
> 
> ...



Thank you for saying that.  And I'll add - because I'm still feeling the sting - when a company goes bankrupt, their sub-contractors don't get paid either.  AND, they don't get the money back that they invested in tooling and/or employees to meet the contract they signed.

How would you like to lose your job, and be left OWING money _because_ of the job?  This is the part of capitalism that the socialists forget (the bloody RISK involved in actually creating wealth for the nation).  Anyway - that's my "civvy" rant for the day.  

I feel for the guys whose contracts aren't being renewed/honoured - and I'm as outraged as anybody over the (as reported so far) lack of warning involved.

As I said earlier - it's reminiscent of earlier decades.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Doesn't seem to be effecting the schools (at least at CFSME) there are a number of people signing 2-3 year Class B's here.


----------



## Robbie

This hole class "B" freeze is a little scary. Yes I am one of them and rely on this work and I personal would like and think I deserve 2-3 weeks notice. Why I don't I go Reg? Well Wainwright doesn't appeal to me but Guelph, Ontario does. Can't get that from the Reg force. Yes every 3yrs my job goes up and I sweat alittle and people do apply but I get lucky and am awarded the contract again. (I'm good at what I do I guess). I know for a fact that my unit and many others would stop training in a matter of weeks if we weren't there. I can't see how my unit could get ready for an weekend EX, Thursday night trg, vehicles/weapons into maint, admin runs to the ASU. A OPs WO, CClk and a MBdr RSS just can't do it (3X reg force pers at my unit). 

But on this hole Class B freeze.  We had an O groupe last week explaining all of this and the e-mail up on the power point forward all the way from LFCA explaining it.  All the money claw backs in LFCA witch includes 31 CBG witch I am apart of and that is affecting the Class B contracts, canceled EXs and courses is because the Army was directed from the Government of Canada that it will fund the Afghanistan mission untill the pull out date in 2011. Now the the powers that be where slow on telling the LFC what there cuts backs where. They finally told the LFCs about 2/3 weeks ago and money had to be freed up by Sept. That is why there is a freeze on EVERYTHING. 

Rob


----------



## Haggis

Let's not all flinch here (as happened within LFCHQ).  Despite how it's being brought across, it's not a freeze in the truest sense.  The Army is taking a hard, but fast look at where and how Class B dollars are being spent _within the Army_.  CLS has no sway over how CEFCOM or ADM (IM) spends Class B dollars while employing Army personnel.

It's understood and accepted that many of the unit level Class B's fill essential functions; that, as Harris said, many HQs cannot survive witho the Class B's (who also bring a degree of stability and corporate memrory to the positions/organizations that Reg F cannot duplicate due to the posting cycle).

In the end, the majority of the positions will likely be renewed (but not all, I am certain) wih the SOUs dated to avoid breaks in service and the associated effects on benefits.

A few more points I'd like to add:

1.  Young Reserve soldiers should be strongly cautioned about using Class B as a career.  As Recceguy said, if you like it that much, then CT.

2.  Older (and I mean that in terms of age and rank) Reservists are, for a variety of reasons, not eligible for or intersted in a CT.  (how can, for example, a 40 year old Res F Maj with a family and a well established working spouse CT?  How many M/CWO positions are availabe for a Class B CWO to CT into?)

3.  Given our current Op tempo and manning, Class B's are an absolute neccessity at this time.  Yes, it's being abused.  No, it won't last forever.  After 2011, when the Field Force comes back from Afghanistan (it may not actually happen, but this is the "party line") many of these Reg F "backfill (manning shortfall)" Class B's will probably be filled, once again and properly, by Reg F members.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

old fart said:
			
		

> Recceguy...agree with your closing comments to a degree.
> 
> What I would advocate given half a chance is zero Regular Force in a Reserve unit.
> 
> A reserve unit would stand or fall on its own merits as would the leadership within.
> 
> It would certainly help in any subsequent Reserve unit rationalization.



I can't speak for all, but many units are going that way already. We've got a couple kicking around that we're employing, but they're not posted here. Just awaiting training.


			
				Dog said:
			
		

> Enough of the Reserve versus Reg argument... it's gotten so old.
> 
> My question is this: for those Reservists on Class B contract for workup for TF1-10, what does that mean to them?


 There is no Reg vs Res argument going on. We're not even, really, comparing the two.

As to your second question, I'm not sure. If they want to keep them I suppose they'll flip them to Cl C, but that's just a guess.


----------



## Redeye

On workup training they would already be on Class C contracts would they not?



			
				Dog said:
			
		

> Enough of the Reserve versus Reg argument... it's gotten so old.
> 
> My question is this: for those Reservists on Class B contract for workup for TF1-10, what does that mean to them?


----------



## GAP

Robbie said:
			
		

> This hole whole class "B" freeze is a little scary. Yes I am one of them and rely on this work and I personal would like and think I deserve 2-3 weeks notice. Why I don't I go Reg? Well Wainwright doesn't appeal to me but Guelph, Ontario does. Can't get that from the Reg force. Yes every 3yrs my job goes up and I sweat alittle and people do apply but I get lucky and am awarded the contract again. (I'm good at what I do I guess). I know for a fact that my unit and many others would stop training in a matter of weeks if we weren't there. I can't see how my unit could get ready for an weekend EX, Thursday night trg, vehicles/weapons into maint, admin runs to the ASU. A OPs WO, CClk and a MBdr RSS just can't do it (3X reg force pers at my unit).
> 
> But on this hole whole Class B freeze.  We had an O groupe last week explaining all of this and the e-mail up on the power point forward all the way from LFCA explaining it.  All the money claw backs in LFCA witch which includes 31 CBG witch which I am apart of and that is affecting the Class B contracts, canceled EXs and courses is because the Army was directed from the Government of Canada that it will fund the Afghanistan mission untill the pull out date in 2011. Now the the powers that be where were slow on telling the LFC what there their cuts backs where were . They finally told the LFCs about 2/3 weeks ago and money had to be freed up by Sept. That is why there is a freeze on EVERYTHING.
> 
> Rob



There....fixed that for you

You had good points, but the spelling errors were hurting your argument


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Redeye said:
			
		

> On workup training they would already be on Class C contracts would they not?



I think most are on Class B during the inital work up and then are put on Class C prior to deploying.


----------



## Robbie

GAP said:
			
		

> There....fixed that for you
> 
> You had good points, but the spelling errors were hurting your argument



Ahhh crap... and thank you. 

Rob


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Robbie said:
			
		

> Ahhh crap... and thank you.
> 
> Rob



Jeez, hope you're not a clerk!! ;D j/k


----------



## dapaterson

Harris said:
			
		

> While I agree that there are a substantial number of Class B posns out there, I challenge the "system" to find a better way of filling many of them otherwise.  For example we were tasked with standing up a new HQ (3 Operational Support Group) in Bedford, and we were given 7 Reg force posns to help staff it.  6 of the 7 are no-fill from the Reg force.  So in a HQ that is meant to start off with approx 14 pers, currently we're at 4 pers.  How do you fix that directive without using Class B pers?



Simple.  Tell CLS "No can do" without the needed resources.

Stop lying to higher that "Yes, we can" when we can't.

And tell higher to take an appetite suppressant because the resources aren't out there to make their pipe dreams a reality.

Question: Why does LFAA still have two CBG HQs, when they were instructed over a decade ago that they were entitled to one, and to prepare a rationalization plan?

Start obeying a few orders to reduce overhead, then complain.


----------



## dapaterson

Dog said:
			
		

> My question is this: for those Reservists on Class B contract for workup for TF1-10, what does that mean to them?



Nothing.  As of the cut-over date they shift to class C, nationally funded.  No problems.

(And there is locally paid class C as well - for example, some of the crew on MCDVs and a handful of other positions - those are paid out of the employing environment's budget, not out of the national Reg F pay account.  DND's accounting is nothing if not, well, interesting...)


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Simple.  Tell CLS "No can do" without the needed resources.
> 
> Stop lying to higher that "Yes, we can" when we can't.
> 
> And tell higher to take an appetite suppressant because the resources aren't out there to make their pipe dreams a reality.
> 
> Question: Why does LFAA still have two CBG HQs, when they were instructed over a decade ago that they were entitled to one, and to prepare a rationalization plan?
> 
> Start obeying a few orders to reduce overhead, then complain.



Maybe because we cover 4 provinces?

How about LFCA they have 3 CBG's.


----------



## dapaterson

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Maybe because we cover 4 provinces?
> 
> How about LFCA they have 3 CBG's.



Yeah.  Right.  Two CBGs plus one Comm Gp turned OSG in LFAA.  For four provinces, and (about) 4K personnel.

Wasteful overhead that isn't needed.


In my world, there would be 2 Reserve formations in LFWA (5 right now), 2 in LFCA (4 right now), two in SQFT (who would inherit the NCR) (3 right now), and one in LFAA (3 right now).

But the LFAA case is simple: orders were given and ignored.  "Plan towards one CBG HQ - two is a temporary measure."  But if you ignore an order long enough someone above might forget it - so you can get away with it.

But this is a side discussion to the larger issue of this thread.


----------



## McG

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem to be effecting the schools (at least at CFSME) there are a number of people signing 2-3 year Class B's here.


Your observations are a little stale.  The direction is army wide & includes the schools of CTC.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But this is a side discussion to the larger issue of this thread.


... and we've done it a few times here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24381.0.html


----------



## Monsoon

old fart said:
			
		

> The Regular Force is still recruiting...I believe this is the website:


Well a change of government could fix that, too. Regardless of how one feels about canaries, smugness isn't the approach to take when one keels over in a coal mine.

And regardless of how one feels about reservists, I think we can agree that simply leaving the jobs undone of the people whose contracts happen to be expiring today is a damned silly way to manage a budget.


----------



## armyvern

recceguy said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it about time the Reg force had to put their own people into the positions they created. They've had the best of both worlds too long. Times are tough all over this country. No one is owed a living.



Ahhh - this is the Pandora's Box. Put what people in those posns? We aren't recruiting purple trades --- our focus for years has been on zero trades, so sayeth the former CDS. Many many BClass purple types holding up the Army RegF system these days. 

You see, the "Army" is at war and has thus grown itself substantially over the past 9 or so years with huge increases in recruiting ... of hard army trades - rightly so. Many of the zero trades are now "overstrength" in the RegF. But, we are at war and therefore they are needed.

Purple trades, however have not seen a posn added to their authorized strength levels since pre-9/11. These trades, because the "Army" has not been vigorously recruiting into them are now very very "red" - some at only 72% manning levels - others far worse off than that. 

YET, the very growth of the "teeth" by such high numbers has seen a corresponding increase in the workload on those 72% of purple workers left to do the jobs. The support workloads have increased by approx 200% over the past couple of years, yet we are only manned at 72% of circa year 2000 manning levels.

The Army (in the Reg F) had ZERO choice BUT to hire B Class pers to assist the RegF get that very dirty business of supporting war done.

If not for the sp of BClass ... the Army's sky would fall at some of those "low priority" manning Units (you know, those Pri 6 Units supporting the pri 2 Reg F Army training system). CTC certainly wouldn't be able to train a single RegF Army zero trade candidate were it not for the augmentation of BClass pers into the Reg F Units holding up that particular tree branch right now.

And thus, at 72% manning, the purple trade exodus continues because people have to actually sleep sometime. 

You want to stem the use of BClass? Then someone had best come of with some form of incentive to "keep the RegF that you've already got!!" <--- And despite it all, doing *that* would seemingly be much more cost effecient in the long run.

Times could certainly get very very interesting around there with this freeze.


----------



## FDO

Do you think that because we had so many Cl B posns and made it so easy to get them AND easy to hang to that people just figured they would have a job as long as they wanted so stayed Reserve instead of going RegF? Kind of like having your cake and eating it too. Maybe this move will prompt some CT to RegF thereby filling some of the shortfalls that we have.


----------



## corp_express

Thanks alot for the posts folks,

I started this topic with two aims, first to confirm that it was really happening, "I don't want people to get themselves burned as we did" and to gather some info on what exactly was going on. 

So far, I understand that they want a snap shot of all class B's in the army...  I'm sorry but the fact that they don't already have this information says alot about why we are currently in this situation... Why are they throwing us around at the small end of the stick because someone wasn't doing their job properly on the top end. Why a freeze? How does that provide accurate SA...? If contracts go through, why can't they just give 30 days notice and terminate our SOU's.

The problem we're facing is that, since we are all now on class A, our benefits "medical, dental..." are taking a needless hit. There is a damn good chance we'll all walk away with contracts once this "snap shot" is over with, so why give us a break in service to get a picture of what you should have already had.

I can't see why a freeze was necessary.  If they wanted it to be effective why not do it from March to April when all the staff officers who drink coffee and play hockey all day's contracts would be up for renewal.

Why in September, when a couple reservist who facilitate a training calendar, will feel the pinch.


----------



## corp_express

Does anyone know where LFDTS teaching positions within CFTPO bricks measure up to this freeze...?

There are training courses starting and I'm curious if the freeze applies to their class B's as well.


----------



## Monsoon

FDO said:
			
		

> Do you think that because we had so many Cl B posns and made it so easy to get them AND easy to hang to that people just figured they would have a job as long as they wanted so stayed Reserve instead of going RegF? Kind of like having your cake and eating it too. Maybe this move will prompt some CT to RegF thereby filling some of the shortfalls that we have.


Maybe so, but the expansion of the use of Class B personnel isn't "the problem". "The problem" is that there isn't enough money. Let's imagine that the regular CF didn't have a 15-year recruiting problem and that all of those positions currently filled by people on Class B (and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that those jobs aren't important) were instead filled by people in the Reg F. Now those jobs cost 15% more. Has that solved "the problem", or made it worse? What gets cut then? TD ("everyone can hitchhike to their courses")? Stationery budgets ("make sure your printers are on manual duplex")?

I'll close by noting that two other CF elements, faced with even more significant budget measures and the same delay in allocations, haven't had to resort to these drastic measures to properly manage their finances. I can only assume that someone very senior in CLS either screwed up, or just thinks that this is a perfectly legitimate way to do business.


----------



## old fart

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Well a change of government could fix that, too. Regardless of how one feels about canaries, smugness isn't the approach to take when one keels over in a coal mine.
> 
> And regardless of how one feels about reservists, I think we can agree that simply leaving the jobs undone of the people whose contracts happen to be expiring today is a damned silly way to manage a budget.



I imagine alot more Class Bs will be feeling the same pain come 2011.  Even if we only draw down 500 or so from Afstan..some folks will be out the Reg Force backfill door.


----------



## Monsoon

old fart said:
			
		

> I imagine alot more Class Bs will be feeling the same pain come 2011.  Even if we only draw down 500 or so from Afstan..some folks will be out the Reg Force backfill door.


Absolutely - as it should be. At least people will be _doing_ the jobs. But hopefully some time between now and 2011 someone will sit down and figure out how the freed-up HR capacity will be used so they can give people in the backfill positions an advance heads-up that their services won't be needed, instead of just telling them, "Oh yeah - that class B we selected you for two months ago won't be staffed. So sorry."


----------



## Journeyman

Harris said:
			
		

> For example we were tasked with standing up a new HQ.....


Why not a freeze on standing up more HQs?


----------



## dapaterson

Frankly, looking at the notionals, I can't see what the Army is up to.  While there have been reductions to local O&M, there should be no problems with Res Pay this FY.

Not sure who's calling the tune on this one; I'm almost inclined to think someone looked at the July/Aug class B numbers and began to panic - forgetting that the July/Aug numbers always spike high due to the folks going on training.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not sure who's calling the tune on this one; I'm almost inclined to think someone looked at the July/Aug class B numbers and began to panic - forgetting that the July/Aug numbers always spike high due to the folks going on training.



You mean, like, a "flinch"?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Oldfart, without the reserves where would you and all your buddies go when you retire?


----------



## George Wallace

There are a lot of misconceptions and naïveté in this discussion so far.  First off, although Class B contracts are being cut, there will remain exceptions.  With the CF, and the Army in particular, not posting Regular Force Support Staff to many of its Reserve Units anymore, there is an even greater requirement for Class B pers to fill positions to keep those Reserve Units in operation and preventing their complete disappearance.  These include Purple Trades, especially the RMS Clerks and Supply Techs.  

As for “if you want the job, CT to Regular Force” idea being thrown out by a couple of naïve members here; that is ridiculous.  I often encourage that the opposite should also be proposed – CT from Reg to Reserve after a long career.  The Reserves need the experience.

Currently I am an annuitant who is working with several other Ex-Reg Force members in a “Force Generating Unit”.  We are a very cheap and efficient method of Recruiting and training members for the CF.  In the last three years we have trained on average 15 pers in our Trade, of which on average, 7 have immediately gone on Tour.  On average 50% of each of those classes has CT’d to the Regular Force.  In the end we are not gaining any experienced pers, if we train them and then loose them all to the Regular Force.  The Regular Force has a “gold mine” in what we are doing.  Our problem is being able to retain enough pers to become “Trainers”.  A freeze on Class B in our case kills our unit, and deprives the Regular Force of trained pers to either CT to the Regs or Deploy as Reservists.  

This whole idea was poorly thought out, and will have a cause and effect exactly like the Downsizing of the CF, FRP, and the Recruiting Freeze of two decades ago.


----------



## corp_express

Flawed...

It's no skin of their back...  they can always retire to the Commissionaires of Canada.  :

I agree with Wallace though, this is a big mistake. Just stopped one of my buddies from signing a lease on a new apartment thinking he was going to have a job with us next week.

I hope the PERSON, who initiated this freeze sees my redress of grievance fly up his rear end when my contract is approved to move forward and I want missed pay and benefits back.


----------



## Otis

Just thought I'd point out that none of these are new issues.

When I was class B 10 years ago, they hummed and hawed about renewing my contract after the intial 3 years was up, FINALLY telling me I was going to still be employed on the 21st or 22nd of March!

That schmozzle was one of several factors that pushed me towards RegF ...

Otis


----------



## Jarnhamar

:nod:


----------



## Haggis

In LFCA the "freeze" has been, for the most part, lifted today.


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are a lot of misconceptions and naïveté in this discussion so far.



Given that there are many frames of reference on many different Class B positions, I'd argue that not having the same opinion as George Wallace doesn't qualify as a misconception or a sign of being naive.  Just make your point.



> As for “if you want the job, CT to Regular Force” idea being thrown out by a couple of naïve members here; that is ridiculous.  I often encourage that the opposite should also be proposed – CT from Reg to Reserve after a long career.  The Reserves need the experience.



How is this ridiculous?  Our career manager has stated that RSS positions in our trade are not filled due to a lack of WOs and Capts.  So, if there were more Captains and WOs, then there would be asses to fill those those seats.


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How is this ridiculous?  Our career manager has stated that RSS positions in our trade are not filled due to a lack of WOs and Capts.  So, if there were more Captains and WOs, then there would be asses to fill those those seats.



So?  Not enough Regular Force to put into RSS positions.  No Class B to backfill.  No organization, training, administration, etc.  Looks pretty ridiculous to me.  Perhaps you subscribe to the "Magicwand theory".....Poof!  This evenings administration and training is brought to you by the quick flick of Infanteer's magicwand.  All TSRs, Lectures, pay, Stores, transport will just magically appear and be in order.  No administration required.

Brilliant!


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Not enough Regular Force to put into RSS positions.  No Class B to backfill.  No organization, training, administration, etc.  Looks pretty ridiculous to me.  Perhaps you subscribe to the "Magicwand theory".....Poof!  This evenings administration and training is brought to you by the quick flick of Infanteer's magicwand.  All TSRs, Lectures, pay, Stores, transport will just magically appear and be in order.  No administration required.
> 
> Brilliant!



So i guess we are back to to many units, not enough resources. Amalgamate units where possible. That way you dont need to man as many ORs, ops cells, etc...

The AF had to do it. Why cant the reserves ?


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Brilliant!



Probably on par with "Let's just cover up our problems with Class B!"

Thing is, others, like the post above, have at least made a suggestion for how to fix things.  Instead of casually writing them off as ridiculous and naive, what's yours?


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So i guess we are back to to many units, not enough resources. Amalgamate units where possible. That way you dont need to man as many ORs, ops cells, etc...
> 
> The AF had to do it. Why cant the reserves ?



You may not want to go there.  We have one newly promoted Reg Force Acting Lacking Air Force MCpl RMS Clerk fresh in from Cold Lake now doing the job as Chief Clerk for two Army Reserve Units, learning on the fly the Reserve Systems, with an Infantryman on a Class B as her Pay Clerk.  The system is already broken.  You don't have to make the suggestion.  It has already become fact.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Well, I suppose we could have the Army amalgamate units based on sound decisions for greater efficiencies and use of limited resources, or we can just wait until the collapsing administrative system forces it to happen.  I'm sure that will be better for everyone.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You may not want to go there.  We have one newly promoted Reg Force Acting Lacking Air Force MCpl RMS Clerk fresh in from Cold Lake now doing the job as Chief Clerk for two Army Reserve Units, learning on the fly the Reserve Systems, with an Infantryman on a Class B as her Pay Clerk.  The system is already broken.  You don't have to make the suggestion.  It has already become fact.



So your solution is to maintain the status quo ?

Now THAT is brillaint.

If units do not have the means to be sustainable, then things have to change. Consolidate units or outright eliminate them. Class B is just a band-aid.


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Probably on par with "Let's just cover up our problems with Class B!"
> 
> Thing is, others, like the post above, have at least made a suggestion for how to fix things.  Instead of casually writing them off as ridiculous and naive, what's yours?



 ???

What suggestions?  Make them all CT to Reg Force?  Perhaps you have missed something in the translation.

Freezing and/or cutting Class B is an ill conceived knee jerk decision made by someone with very little thought as to the long term effects.    Converting "if they want to work, then they can CT to Regular Force" does not solve any problem, but only compounds it.  You might as well just disband the Reserves and loose a very high percentage of your Deployable pers.  The Training System can not keep up with the Recruiting System.  This leaves the Army toothless in the next year or so if that is the desire.

Even in the 70's, the idea was to Train the Reserves so that they can Train themselves.  They require full-time Reservists in certain critical positions to do so.  As I have already said, Infanteer's magicwand is not a reality.

Your suggestions are not solutions.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Your suggestions are not solutions.



Neither are yours. To use your words, the system is broken and all you have to offer is to just keep going. No one said that the reserves do not need some full-time positions. I dont think any one can argue to the contrary. But the shear number of them have likely outstripped the army's ability to pay for them. Aside from the need for some full-time staff, a reservist is a part-time soldier and if one wants 100% guaranteed full-time military employment, the RegF is the place to get it.

You have been around this site long enough to have seen the growth in the number of posters who come here asking to join the reserves and work full-time right away. It is becoming an expectation and it shouldnt be.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So your solution is to maintain the status quo ?



Our "Status quo" was one Sgt and two MCpls doing Ops and Training as well as Recruiting and then teaching QL5A full time each summer.  We are now getting out of that "Status quo" by hiring a Class B Ops O, a Class B Ops WO, a Class B Admin O and a Class B QM/Tpt NCO, leaving the Sgt and two MCpls to concentrate on Training and Recruiting under the direction of a Class A CO and Training O.  We have to do this as we have tripled our Unit strength and are constantly called upon to fill posns on Ops and within other CF organizations as Class B and Class C.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have to do this as we have tripled our Unit strength and are constantly called upon to fill posns on Ops and within other CF organizations as Class B and Class C.



If you did not have the means to sustain that large a growth, why did it go ahead ?

My unit is constantly tasked with sending people on this or that, yet we manage to say "NO' when required so that the unit doesnt fall apart. Sounds to me like your unit needs better management, the same kind you suggest for people who made this "freeze" happen.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ......... Aside from the need for some full-time staff, a reservist is a part-time soldier and if one wants 100% guaranteed full-time military employment, the RegF is the place to get it.



I have already stated that on average 50% of our crses CT.  We loose our talent before it is even acquired.  When the current Ex-Reg Force Class B staff reach their end date (CRA, Release, whatever) what is left to perpetuate the training, or the Unit?  

We need RMS clerks.  We are advertising for them.  Along comes a Army wide Class B employment freeze.  Now we can't hire them.  Thanks!


----------



## McG

How much of the problem is the units & how much of it is HQs growing themselves on Class B positions?

How much of the problem is lack of central coordination?  We've seen the number of Class B opportunities exceed the number of reservists ready to fill them.  In this environment of locally driven growth the national priorities are competing on a level playing field with local whims.  The locally driven growth needs to be restrained by some level of central coordination to ensure the priorities get filled.

... it should be noted that "local whims" might include sections of the Land Staff in Ottawa deciding they need new positions.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We loose our talent before it is even acquired.



So hiring them class B is the solution ? No.



> When the current Ex-Reg Force Class B staff reach their end date (CRA, Release, whatever) what is left to perpetuate the training, or the Unit?



Have no fear, more of the same will be available. 



> Along comes a Army wide Class B employment freeze.  Now we can't hire them.  Thanks!



So either work the ones you have to death ( not a good plan) or control the demands to match resources. Imagine that, the rest of the CF has to do it......

Over here, we are the largest operational Sqn in the AF and our OR only has 1 Sgt, 1 Mcpl, a Cpl and one Pte. The Sgt is also the admin O ( officer is in the sandbox), the unit IT coordinator, the DA holder for the unit, the unit security O, etc....we lost our B class RMS over a year ago and low and behold, the house didnt fall apart did it.......

We are losing our B class standards pilot.....life isnt stopping. The unit just had to make choices about what it can and cant do.......


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If you did not have the means to sustain that large a growth, why did it go ahead ?



It was ordered.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> My unit is constantly tasked with sending people on this or that, yet we manage to say "NO' when required so that the unit doesnt fall apart. Sounds to me like your unit needs better management, the same kind you suggest for people who made this "freeze" happen.



My unit has fairly good management.  We are victims of our own success, and the lack of management at Area, and higher, and the will to finish what we were ordered to do.  Our Unit fills posns that are undermanned on every Op.  It is not our choice that our young troops are keen and want to deploy.  It is not our choice that the CF can not fill posns that we can fill.  With the success, we were just becoming able to fill posns to generate more members to our Trade.  Members who Deploy as well as CT.  With a few more Class B posns we would be able to maintain this level of training and commitment at a reasonable level.  Without the Class B posns we will lose all continuity and experience.  

If the CF really wants, many of our members could leave the Reserves, and not join the CF, but deploy as civilians as part of NATO and earn several times what they could in the CF, with almost all the same benefits.  Some in the Trade are already doing so, and keeping others across the country informed as to openings.  The CF can keep them or loose them.........the CF's choice.

We would then have to look into Loyalty and Commitment of the individuals, not the CF's 'desires'.  That would be heading off track a bit, but not too much so.


----------



## Jarnhamar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So i guess we are back to to many units, not enough resources. Amalgamate units where possible. That way you dont need to man as many ORs, ops cells, etc...
> 
> The AF had to do it. Why cant the reserves ?



Reserve wise it's hard to coordinate excersises, training, work and all things army when your 100KMs apart from each other.


The Regular force NEEDs the reserves.
The Regular force can't handle a mass exodus of resevists CTing.
The Reg forces hardly has enough room, training area, ranges and such for the soldiers they have. Won't even touch training.
Reserve units which support and supplement the reg force need a full time staff t run it. Especially considering the draw on manpower tours are taking on the reserves, not to mention other full time taskings.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Have no fear, more of the same will be available.



 ???  How?  Class B is frozen.  No hiring.





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Over here, we are the largest operational Sqn in the AF and our OR only has 1 Sgt, 1 Mcpl, a Cpl and one Pte. The Sgt is also the admin O ( officer is in the sandbox), the unit IT coordinator, the DA holder for the unit, the unit security O, etc....we lost our B class RMS over a year ago and low and behold, the house didnt fall apart did it.......
> 
> We are losing our B class standards pilot.....life isnt stopping. The unit just had to make choices about what it can and cant do.......



Right.  I am AUSS.  I, nor anyone in my unit, has had their MPPRs updated since Aug 2008.  We have had no updates to our records in PeopleSoft since summer of 2008.  We have had 100% turn around in our OR four times in the last year.  I had an outstanding Claim for eight months, and finally had to have a Sgt RMS Clerk in London finalize it over the phone, fax and email.  I have to deal with DPM Secur 2 and tell them that my guys are no longer Infantry, and need a higher level than Lvl II to do their jobs.  No hiring Class B only keeps us few in my unit frustrated in the brick walls we pound our heads off of to get things done daily.  Imagine if we were Class A.  Luckily, we were able to get authority to hire some prior to the freeze, and just as the freeze was being announced.  We are hamstrung by the freeze to fill the last couple of posns to keep our heads above water.

If the rumour that the freeze is over, then we can heave a sigh of relief.

I will admit, that there probably are some Class B posns out there that are unnecessary, but I can't think of any.  I know that Class B Reservists are filling a good majority of posns in CFRCs, NDHQ, the various Dot.Coms, operational units, as well as many similar posns as civilians working for DND and its various Agencies.  Class B and Class C Reservists can be found in almost every CF organization, right up to the top. 

In reality, this Class B freeze is a Red Herring.  The CF has had it's budget cut.  The Army has a High Tempo and is overspending.  In past years, the end year surpluses in the other two elements have offset any major budget concerns.  This year those surpluses are not likely to be there.  The Army is looking for money.  I needs to find it somewhere.  Class B seemed to be an instant fix; but not a long term one.  Saving a nickel today, but costing thousands tomorrow was the knee jerk reaction.


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I will admit, that there probably are some Class B posns out there that are unnecessary, but I can't think of any.  I know that Class B Reservists are filling a good majority of posns in CFRCs, NDHQ, the various Dot.Coms, operational units, as well as many similar posns as civilians working for DND and its various Agencies.  Class B and Class C Reservists can be found in almost every CF organization, right up to the top.



Read the NDA for the definition of Res vs Reg - "other than continuing full-time service".  We "deem" reservists to be Reg F after 5 years for pension purposes - admitting that we're essentially breaking the law.

Many reserve positions are created because none of our "leaders" have the balls to say "No.".  "No - I lack the Reg F PYs to accomplish that." And others lack the balls to say "Do what you are ordered to do with your resources, not that other dumb-ass crap that you're doing."  (And don't try to use creative accounting to get around your superior's orders. (Cough trying to transfer money from CF national level funding to pay for your local initiatives that were refused by higher then acting surprised that you had no authority to take the money and got caught and have to repay it cough)



> In reality, this Class B freeze is a Red Herring.  The CF has had it's budget cut.  The Army has a High Tempo and is overspending.  In past years, the end year surpluses in the other two elements have offset any major budget concerns.  This year those surpluses are not likely to be there.  The Army is looking for money.  I needs to find it somewhere.  Class B seemed to be an instant fix; but not a long term one.  Saving a nickel today, but costing thousands tomorrow was the knee jerk reaction.



There has been no CF budget cut.  For FY 09/10 the Army's Reserve pay budget has increased.  For 06/07 and 07/08 the Army handed back money at the end of the fiscal year - in the tens of millions (though admittedly it was not all vote 1); 08/09 the Army barely broke even (under 1/2 % overspent).  This FY there are some exceptional circumstances, but the Army still has more funds compared to last year (next FY will be much more austere - not driven by funding cuts but by the DND/CF plan for post A'stan that sees much of the Army's temporary increments going away - despite the delusions of some in the Army that the current funding levels are the new normal).

Always lots of rumors and innuendo; unfortunately, far too often good info does not get passed down, or commanders fail to provide the context for their orders - that foolish thing called "Commander's intent".


----------



## corp_express

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There has been no CF budget cut.



Granted, but isn't this relative?
I have one car. I fill it with oil it takes 4 L.
I have two cars. But I only get 6 L's to fill both leaving me 2 L's short....

My oil went up, but so did my consumption...    did I gain anything?
The reality, I maybe have to go with a smaller car for my second one. Or even get rid of one car.

Not get rid of both of my cars. The whole shut down units, amalgamate them...  that leads to burnt bridges.
We just spent millions on force generation...  for what? So that we can close the doors and destroy the progress that has been made?

Oh and, hopefully the "freeze is coming to an end rumour is true," it was a ridiculous flinch on the part of a leadership team somewhere to try and get the information they didn't have.

Hiring does not need to stop, that is why SOU's have a 30 days notice of termination. "Both ways" They just need better control on what positions exist. Trim the fat by all means, but the freeze serves no purpose other than inconveniencing the guys down here at the pointy end.


----------



## dapaterson

corp_express said:
			
		

> We just spent millions on force generation...  for what? So that we can close the doors and destroy the progress that has been made?



Destroy progress?  No.  Scale back since the Army will not be deployed to the same degree and can resume a more peacetime, static posture?  Of course.  Newsflash:  Come 2011 the number of class Bs in the CF will reduce significantly as the Reg F returns in great numbers, so replacements will not be needed.  The indiv trg backfill throughout LFDTS will be pruned, as with folks not in pre-deployment training, deployed, or in their post-deployment period there will be thousands more Reg F pers aval for incremental taskings.



> There shall be a component of the Canadian Forces, called the regular force, that consists of officers and non-commissioned members who are enrolled for continuing, full-time military service.
> 
> There shall be a component of the Canadian Forces, called the reserve force, that consists of officers and non-commissioned members who are enrolled for other than continuing, full-time military service when not on active service.



The Reserve Force is not on active service.  Therefore, you are not enrolled for continuing, full-time military service.  If that's what you want, there's an option for that.  If, on the other hand, you want the pay, but not the commitment (30 days notice) or a willingness to relocate for the needs of the service...


----------



## ArmyRick

My take is this.

We do not know that ops will be scaled back in 2011. Thats not a wise assumption to make. 
I am in a unit with about 20-25% Class B. And we need more. Our tempo is very busy and without the class B, there would be a whole lot of soldiers still not progressing to there battalions.

The Class B are still very much needed, in the army anyways, I can not speak for the Navy or the Air Force.


----------



## corp_express

I agree, SOME class B's should go the way of the dinosaur as the Army reestablishes it self, they are meant as temporary fulfillment of a need in manpower.

My argument is simply that someone is currently experiencing an extreme lapse in judgement wrt administrating them. 

That being said, I strongly disagree that we need to start scaling back on force generation "Take up a static peace time posture!?!?" Ideas like that are what put us in this damn mess in the first place. "I thought we learned our lesson in the 70's-90's. International deployments WILL continue to occur. Be it Afghanistan, Africa or wherever, the BG pulling out of Kandahar simply signals a welcome shift in pace. I'm sure that other organizations within that AO are CURRENTLY building themselves up to take some of that extra man power becoming available. POMLT, OMLT, PRT...

Yes, the BG leaving will give us a needed breath, but we are currently operating outside our own capcity. We still need to Force Generate. The whole house of cards resides in fresh bodies. Why have a standing army, if it's ineffective at the 2700 pers deployed mark. It's not a lack of skills, expertise, its the common sense one "Man power", we should take the current situation and learn from it. We need a bigger leaner "less top heavy" army. Scaling back on recruiting would not fix anything  , it costs us twice as much to try and get soldiers after the fact. Lets keep the "progress we have" and bolster ourselves "as best we can". 

Honestly, with a country of our population as far as manpower goes...  we are pathetic right now. We need to fix that. 

Class B's and the reserves play a major role in Force Generation and always will. Trim the fat on the Class B's that are useless, "there are some" but don't Scale anything back...  

I'm sure we can find tons of useless stuff to cut budgets on I.E. How many copies of the Maple Leaf do we really need out there sitting in our OR's...   I don't need three copies to myself.


----------



## COBRA-6

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why not a freeze on standing up more HQs?



Ding Ding Ding!! We have a winner.

When the issue of saving money/reducing budgets comes up it seems that the knee jerk reaction is to threaten to cut the low-hanging fruit, Reg or Reserve. 

Res = "If you cut my budget I'll have to fire/freeze Class B's, or cut training" 
Reg = "If you cut my budget I'll have to chop x Battalion, stop hiring etc"

What about the massive overhead the Army/CF/DND has to run our tiny field force? How many layers of HQ do we need to run the field force? How many bases should we spread our Div(-) worth of units across? How many 24/7 Op Centers do we need accross the country? What about trg? Does each area need an ATC or could it be centralized like the CTC? How much time (paid man-hours) and effort do we spend moving staff/troops/eqpt around the country to justify CMTC?  

Does the PRes structure make any sense? Regiment/Battalion HQ for a Coy sized manouvre element? 2 Inf units in the same armoury with separte structures? A CBG HQ with a separate TBG HQ? Also a separate CBG Battle School HQ structure? 

I propose a new HQ or Task Force be stood up to look into the above. It will only require about 12-15 Class B posns to staff it...


----------



## Redeye

And if I can be a WSE Captain for the duration of the contract, I'll step up and fill one of those positions.  I can be the staff coffee consultant.



			
				COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> I propose a new HQ or Task Force be stood up to look into the above. It will only require about 12-15 Class B posns to staff it...


----------



## ltmaverick25

For those who were inquiring, the Class B freeze order came from the CLS himself.  Notice was given approx 3 weeks ago.  The explanation for the funding cuts was that some room in the army budget had to be made to accomodate all the new equipment purchases recently announced.


----------



## dapaterson

corp_express said:
			
		

> That being said, I strongly disagree that we need to start scaling back on force generation "Take up a static peace time posture!?!?" Ideas like that are what put us in this damn mess in the first place. "I thought we learned our lesson in the 70's-90's. International deployments WILL continue to occur. Be it Afghanistan, Africa or wherever, the BG pulling out of Kandahar simply signals a welcome shift in pace. I'm sure that other organizations within that AO are CURRENTLY building themselves up to take some of that extra man power becoming available. POMLT, OMLT, PRT...



We will be resourced to meet the demands.  We cannot maintain a large standing force for every just-in-case eventuality.

We do need to rethink some things from top to bottom - build better methods of training; better TMST; better force employment (3 years, 2 tours for a formed unit makes a hell of a lot more sense than ad-hoc-ing everything and still having folks do 2 tours in 3 years anyways)

The gov't direction is that we're leaving.  That is what we have to plan with - certainly, there can be contingencies, but we can't act on them - otherwise it's that pesky disobeying orders thing.



> Yes, the BG leaving will give us a needed breath, but we are currently operating outside our own capcity. We still need to Force Generate. The whole house of cards resides in fresh bodies. Why have a standing army, if it's ineffective at the 2700 pers deployed mark. It's not a lack of skills, expertise, its the common sense one "Man power", we should take the current situation and learn from it. We need a bigger leaner "less top heavy" army. Scaling back on recruiting would not fix anything  , it costs us twice as much to try and get soldiers after the fact. Lets keep the "progress we have" and bolster ourselves "as best we can".



We don't need a bigger Army.  We need to do things smarter.  In another thread I pointed out that in the Reg F we have 9 Inf, 3 Armd, 3 Arty, 3 CERs, 3 Svc Bns with about 11500 pers in them - of the 21K in the Army.  We could shrink and still get more tooth.



> Honestly, with a country of our population as far as manpower goes...  we are pathetic right now. We need to fix that.
> 
> Class B's and the reserves play a major role in Force Generation and always will. Trim the fat on the Class B's that are useless, "there are some" but don't Scale anything back...



As the guy who used to count the class Bs for the Army, I can say with some comfort that we could reduce the number by a significant portion with no/minimal impact.  Some of it would have to be made up from the Reg F - see above for the "Where are those 10K people?" question - but other functions are useless and unnecessary; others add only to admin burdens, and many others are tied to "Seventy three people is a regiment, so we need six full-time people.  So does the other regiment of eighty nine across the hall."  Fix the Reserve structure and there's a lot of full-timers freed up - some to reinvest, some to sned to higher priority tasks.



> I'm sure we can find tons of useless stuff to cut budgets on I.E. How many copies of the Maple Leaf do we really need out there sitting in our OR's...   I don't need three copies to myself.



NDHQ is another ripe area for cuts - with over 10% of the Reg F trained strength something is wrong, wrong, wrong.  And with 28? Level 1 organizations (each considered the equivalent of the Navy, Army and Air Force) there's ample room to whittle away.  But that's a whole other set of rants...


----------



## Stoker

I figured I would wade in and give you a snapshot on the Navy side of things. Right now there a budget shortfall, that has affected our budgets, but no freeze on Class B or C. In fact we lots lots of billets open both for B and C. We're also seeing lots of persons are being hired on Class B and C for the Olympics.
We have had in the past a freeze on hiring, but not to the extent as the Army has had.


----------



## dapaterson

Like the Air Force, the Navy ignores the NDA and its definitions about Reg and Res.  We've sufficiently corrupted our methods of employment with little thought about the ability of the institution to generate and sustain the Reserve pers we want.

Of course, the large number of senior folks in NDHQ double-dipping means the full-time brigade won't go quietly into the night...


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Like the Air Force, the Navy ignores the NDA and its definitions about Reg and Res.



_
*Regular force*

15. (1) There shall be a component of the Canadian Forces, called the regular force, that consists of officers and non-commissioned members who are enrolled for continuing, full-time military service.

...

*Reserve force*

(3) There shall be a component of the Canadian Forces, called the reserve force, that consists of officers and non-commissioned members who are enrolled for other than continuing, full-time military service when not on active service.
_

I don't see how the navy and air force uniquely violate these definitions in a way that the army doesn't. Too be honest, I don't see that any component of the CF does.


----------



## Edward Campbell

At the risk of going of topic, I wonder if the words "enrolled for" cannot be interpreted to allow for the current high levels of Class B and C service. 

Regular Force members are "enrolled for" full time service, that's clear enough. Similarly, reserve force members are "enrolled for" "other than" full time service but, once enrolled and trained, there is not an *apparent* (to me) restriction on how that member can serve: full time, "other than full time," and so on.

The *intention* is clear enough but I don't see that anything "wrong" is being done - not, at least, according to that snippet of the NDA.


----------



## Stoker

Perhaps its time to overhaul the NDA and adopt a system like the US where you're in the reserves and can go from "reserve status" to "active duty" as the need requires. As well if you're "regular" you can go drop to "reserve" status if you need to.

As for the Naval Reserve its been a long time coming, however the higher ups have admitted that they need long term Class B and C personnel, from the fact we have pers who have been Class B and C for over 10 years or longer. There's no way that our ship's can sail and carry out our mission with a personnel who can only give a summer employment or less. It certainly never started out that way but that's where we're at.


----------



## dapaterson

When it's the routine business of the CF routinely being conducted by the Reserve Force we're violating the spirit of the law.

My critique of the Navy and AF is predicated primarily on the % of their pers that they employ full-time; in raw numbers, the Army definitely has them beat.

We (the CF, corporate we) need to look at what we do, how we do it - and figure out a way forward.  The uncontrolled, unrestricted expansion of full-time military pers (in some cases "because it's easier than public servants") doesn't wash.

Any revised model must be controlled - and must explicitly acknowledge what we are asking of our people.  "Give us five years - we'll give you thirty days" is absurd.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> [The CF is] violating the spirit of the law ... The uncontrolled, unrestricted expansion of full-time military pers (in some cases "because it's easier than public servants") doesn't wash.
> ...




Both points are 100% correct.

I also agree there must be a better way, but it has to start on Parliament Hill with an *explicit* acknowledgment, in budgets, estimates and supply motions, of the resources we - all Canadians - *authorize* our "servants" (civil and armed) to use to accomplish the tasks we (same "we") assign to the military. Then the "better way" must move to 101 Colonel By Drive (AKA Fort Fumble, Disneyland sur Rideau, etc) and admirals and generals must, repeat *MUST* refuse tasks for which resources are not voted. Then a sensible system can start to be developed.

But, until the CDS says, _"Sorry, Prime Minister, can't so that until you provide more money for more soldiers, more ships and guns, more rations and so on,"_ and until a PM goes back to parliament and introduces an emergency motion for _interim supply_ every time the CF is tapped out, the system will remain as it is now.

The CF is, in many cases, the author of its own misfortunes - aided and abetted by a _political centre_ that wants to avoid hard problems. During the course of a long career, especially during the last 10 years or so, I heard admirals and generals say _"We need to say 'NO!' We need to tell the government that the well is dry"_ and so on; but they never, ever did. Somewhere on the 13th floor all the good intentions evaporated and we resumed our march on the road that's paved with them.


----------



## rocket

My brigade just got a 10% hit, which seems to be behind the ones out east.  I guess when you hand out Class B casuals like candy, the jar is going to be empty.  I have been told that the Class B/A can't be touched, because it takes an estalishment change.  Not holding my breath.  Someone brought up ammalgamation, which my unit is actually going through.  Problem is, that the ammalgamation's proposed AER has 19 full time postion between the 2 units.

Does anyone actually know of anybody who has actually lost a job?  Class B or B/A?


----------



## dapaterson

What seems to be happening is 

(1) a complete review (imagine, senior commanders finally getting engaged.  A few years too late, but still, better than nothing)

(2) new positions being canceled in the embryonic stage

(3) Open competitions being deferred until decisions are made


It's almost humorous - it's just over a year since the one person in the Army HQ who could reliably report on full-time reservists and where they are working left; and now, suddenly, they're getting religion and want information - and are engaging in a typical Army response - massive staff checks to provide information that can be more easily and reliably done by tapping in to existing national IT systems.  But why take the easy route when you can create a massive staff churn?

(Note that I'm somewhat biased on the topic at hand...)


----------



## rocket

Humourous is right!!! I had to do a report on the 14 odd people in my unit.  I asked why, the answer I got was because when they push the 'button' all they was unit X - 14 full time positions.  I laughed, god did I laugh.  Like I said when you hand out class b's like candy, the jar is going to be empty.  You would think that given the amount of class b's in canada, there should be some sort of acountabilty.  

I have been in a B/A position for more than 10 years.  I remember going through this in the mid 90s, and a whole bunch of positions (the casual ones) got axed.  Now they say that they want to cut 1000 or so positions.  Can you imagin a guy who has been on a casual contract for 5 years or so given his 30 days?  It makes me wonder if they are going to cut B/A esablished positions as well.  And what about the Reg Force back fills?  Doing more with less is the way of the future it seems.  Anyone know how long this review is going to take?  It seems to have started out east last summer.


----------



## PMedMoe

rocket said:
			
		

> Can you imagin a guy who has been on a casual contract for 5 years or so given his 30 days?



Guess what??  As much as it sucks, it was never meant to be a full-time job.


----------



## rocket

If it wasn't meant as a full-time gig, then why do reserve units have 3-4, established full-time position, beyond the RSS?


----------



## PMedMoe

rocket said:
			
		

> If it wasn't meant as a full-time gig, then why do reserve units have 3-4, established full-time position, beyond the RSS?



I think there's a whole other thread on that one.


----------



## CountDC

rocket said:
			
		

> Humourous is right!!! I had to do a report on the 14 odd people in my unit.  I asked why, the answer I got was because when they push the 'button' all they was unit X - 14 full time positions.  I laughed, god did I laugh.  Like I said when you hand out class b's like candy, the jar is going to be empty.  You would think that given the amount of class b's in canada, there should be some sort of acountabilty.
> 
> I have been in a B/A position for more than 10 years.  I remember going through this in the mid 90s, and a whole bunch of positions (the casual ones) got axed.  Now they say that they want to cut 1000 or so positions.  Can you imagin a guy who has been on a casual contract for 5 years or so given his 30 days?  It makes me wonder if they are going to cut B/A esablished positions as well.  And what about the Reg Force back fills?  Doing more with less is the way of the future it seems.  Anyone know how long this review is going to take?  It seems to have started out east last summer.



As I mentioned somewhere else - I thought earlier in this thread but could be wrong. 1997 - major cuts to HQ's - LFAA (and I understand the others) were cut from 250+ to just under 100 positions.  Cl B/A positions cuts mainly.  Mine wasn't cut but was downgraded so I received the 30 days notice too (which I was the one typing them all so it was a bit odd telling myself I was fired). Same thing a dozen years later but now hitting the units.  I'll continue preaching for FPS instead of full time reserve.  That review took something like a year to complete if memory serves.


----------



## dapaterson

Anyone familiar with the story of Joseph (I'm getting biblical here)?  Seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine.  The Army (and larger CF) are faced with a similar situation here:  A long period of plentiful funds, where anyone and everyone started hiring full-time Reserve staff, with little thought of the future or of sustainability (arguably, we've already broken the Reserve Force, yanking much of its senior leadership into full-time service and leaving the units with only a shell of part-time leaders).

Now, suddenly (but not unexpectedly) the funding situation is changing; resources are getting tighter, and therefore a more draconian eye must be cast upon much of the growth (and indeed, a confirmation that the current baseline is correct).

Quickly, off the top of my head: over the last six years the number of full-time Army Reservists nearly doubled (2300+ in Dec '03, 4000+ in Sept 07).  While class C number spiked significantly upwards, so too did class B numbers - and that growth was almost exclusively within the Army.

Are those numbers sustainable, from a personnel generation perspective?  Are they financially sustainable?  To my knowledge, the answer to both is "No.".  But getting from here to a sustainable model is going to be painful for everyone involved.


----------



## gcclarke

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Anyone familiar with the story of Joseph (I'm getting biblical here)?  Seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine.  The Army (and larger CF) are faced with a similar situation here:  A long period of plentiful funds, where anyone and everyone started hiring full-time Reserve staff, with little thought of the future or of sustainability (arguably, we've already broken the Reserve Force, yanking much of its senior leadership into full-time service and leaving the units with only a shell of part-time leaders).
> 
> Now, suddenly (but not unexpectedly) the funding situation is changing; resources are getting tighter, and therefore a more draconian eye must be cast upon much of the growth (and indeed, a confirmation that the current baseline is correct).
> 
> Quickly, off the top of my head: over the last six years the number of full-time Army Reservists nearly doubled (2300+ in Dec '03, 4000+ in Sept 07).  While class C number spiked significantly upwards, so too did class B numbers - and that growth was almost exclusively within the Army.
> 
> Are those numbers sustainable, from a personnel generation perspective?  Are they financially sustainable?  To my knowledge, the answer to both is "No.".  But getting from here to a sustainable model is going to be painful for everyone involved.



The problem isn't an excess of reservists being hired during times of plenty. The problem is the fact that there is a cycle between times of plenty and times of scarcity, and that when they do come, we can't really do too much about it. 

It's not like a unit is allowed to save up funds during times of plenty so that it can sustain its spending levels during times of scarcity. When you've given a budget for a year, the money had darn well be spent during that year. So, if you have the funds available, you might as well hire more reservists to fill in some of the gaps. 

And of course, once the money is no longer available, you'll probably have to let some of them go. But it's not like there's anything we can do about it.

It is not the Department of National Defence's responsibility to ensure that its funding and spending levels are sustainable. It is DND's responsibility to ensure that we spend the money that is allocated to us in any given year in a responsible and legal manner. If we are spending "too much" in any given year, that is because we have been allocated "too much" money, and that may be corrected down the road, especially when the economic situation in the country isn't as rosy. Yes, this may mean that we may not be able to "sustain" the same level of operations from year to year. Ensuring that budget fluctuations for any particular department aren't too drastic is up to the Finance Minister, and his department. If he is forced to cut spending in the Government's budget, it is between him and the rest of cabinet to determine where those cuts can be made. If some of them have to go to DND, and this negatively affects our capability to do our job, that decision may indeed still be made, with the men and women representing the citizens of Canada cognizant of that impact.


----------



## X-mo-1979

After reading this thread a good 10 times I still don't have a concrete idea of what is going on!Little above my head I guess.
Will there be a review of position's that can be filled by regular force members apres 2011?I have always seen certain position in our corp that didnt make sense to employ reservist in.Not when you go back to the same hanger the B class guy is working from and see 20 Tpr/Cpl's sitting around doing nothing.Seemed like a waste of money to me,as were already paying the regular force guys...why not use em instead.I do understand this gives some experience to the reservist,however with a army that is going to be sitting around on it's thumbs,wouldnt it make sense to gainfully employ the regular force?Saves money.

May be a little out of my lane.Just my observations.


----------



## dapaterson

Duing the years of plenty it is incumbent upon managers and leaders to ensure they are building a sustainable structure for the future.  This they refused to do.

Many "gaps" where we hired reservists are artificial.  We create gaps routinely - at times, deliberately - by mis-prioritizing or, in some instances, deliberately not doing core business while nice-to-haves are pursued vigorously - so we can complain of being under-resourced.

Again, much of this comes down to strong central leadership and strong controls to prevent creep.


X-mo:  In part, it's been easier to hire someone than to do the co-ord required to employ those we already have.  We've become an Army of little empires- and it's better to own your own soldier that to ask someone else to provide.


----------



## CountDC

The review that resulted in the 97 cuts had all the posns at the HQ looked at - regular, Cl B/A, Cl B, Cl A and civillian.  Most cuts were to the reserve positions that were mainly B/A ones. The Cl A ones cut were mainly LCol/Col level.  Left mainly with Reg F, mostly officers.


----------



## rocket

So does anyone find it funny that allot of reserve units got to hire CR3s last year and now there is a full time position review?  I find it very odd.  In my brigade, the HQ is full of Cl B casual.  My unit has 2 B/A, 1 B, 1 civilian, 1 Reg Force back fill, and 4 RSS.  And we are a small unit.  Do I think that we could lose a couple positons? Maybe the Cl B casual, but someone, somewhere, a long time ago gave us all these postions.  And now we are doing more with less.  How us cutting position going to to help overall, when we are going to be hiring people to help curb the backlog that OP PODIUM is going to create, let alone the vacancies created when people just quit.


----------



## dapaterson

(1) The funding for civilian clerks is about 4 years old; that it is only now hitting the ground is sad, but not a surprise.

(2) The standard template for reserve units (less Svc Bns, MPs and Sigs) is three Reg F positions: One Capt (unit trade); one WO (unit trade); and one Sgt (RMS).  Many units have a fourth position, either a Sgt (unit trade) or MCpl (Sup Tech).

(3) Units have a standard allocation of BA positions: One Sgt (RMS); one cpl (RMS); plus one MCpl (RMS) per company/sqn.

Casual class B are not part of the standard templates.  They are lower-level decisions to fill needs; a certain amount of funding is allocated for that purpose.  However, they are not an entitlement.


Note that the theoretical templates for units include more Reg F positions.  However, there is a limited number of Reg F positions that the Army has allocated in support of the Reserves.  Overall demand outstrips supply, so prioritization has been made in the allocation of positions.  (Relocating Reg F positions can be expensive, as cost moves must be funded by the originator of the relocation.  In addition, changes in rank and/or occupation may have other impacts; just tweaking a few positions has many more effects than most people realize)

Add to that that not 100% of Regular Force positions are filled (anywhere), and we have part of the current situation.  Note that the Army has been quite fortunate to receve additional funding in recent years to provide for backfill of Reg F vacancies in Reserve units.  Given the current "official" plans see an end to the current mission in 2011, that funding should not be expected to continue.

(And to one reader:  George, from an organizational and structural perspective, you're in the most screwed up unit around.)


----------



## McG

I recently heard it explained that manpower is the only place the Army has to save money.  The Navy (apparently) can save enormous amounts in fuel costs by operating the ships slower & even deciding to just drift through dark hours; the Air Force (apparently) can also save enormous amounts by reducing flying hours; but the Army (apparently) has most of its costs in manpower as opposed to the operation of its equipment.  Apparently, the only way for the Army to achieve the required moderation of costs is to _stop_ employment: no new reserve hiring & all civilian staffing personally approved by the CLS.

... at the very least, I expect there is some exaggeration in the above.  However, it was the explanation recently passed on from LFDTS.


----------



## CountDC

I would agree with some exaggeration.  The Navy scenario could save some but not really to the full level.  Also operating at a slower speed is debatable for saving fuel as in the long run you still have to get to the same port and it will take longer to get there now.  You have to figure out how much are you saving by going slow and how much more are you burning by sailing the extra days. Not sure of the drifting during dark - never experienced it or know of it being done.  Would have to wonder about it though from a safety factor along with amount of drift off course.  Seems if you drifted too much the fuel saved would be burned getting back on course. Wouldn't be surprised though if it was done.

Usually we save on the fuel budget by simply not sailing at all. Jan-Mar is tight and some sails will be delayed to stay in budget.


----------



## Grognard73

Just a thought on the whole thread here.  There is no doubt that massive reductions in Class B are going to have second and third order effects that no one could expect.  The frustration and impact of long time Class B soldiers suddenly faced with reductions will be traumatic.  But, did anyone ever read their contract, did we all understand the potential temporary nature and inherent risks of what we were doing?  It is like being a contract employee in a civilian company, business good, jobs aplenty, business bad, reductions across the board.  There are some real impacts here that must be considered by the chain of command but making these decisions are not easy.  For arguments sake should we maintain all Class Bs and reduce the funding allocations for Class A?  How does that go down?

My advice is simple, if you have been on Class B for more than three years, your options are Component Transfer, or back to Class A and find another job.  I know our leaders are working on this and I know there is an honest concern for the impacts but we need sound leadership and information to all.  Those of us who are part of the chain of command should be seeking the rationale from our Commanders and then telling the truth about  the decisions not fueling our fears with cynical opinion and misinformation.  Dave, you need to help here not continue with what you are doing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

It's interesting that people still think reserve regiments can be run part time. 
*shrugs*
I think it will be a bit of a shock the next time a taskforce says "okay, we need 800 trained and motivated reservists to deploy to Afghanistan!"

If anything this class B cut was/is a good way to bolster the ranks of the regular force.  80% to 90% of soldiers at my regiment who have tour experience are CTing to the regs.   People leave the reserves and go off to do other things, that's nothing new.  The class B cuts however are pushing the experienced soldiers and junior leadership out of the reserves much sooner and their not passing on their experience nor will they be able to help develop the next generation.

The Regs are getting more image techs, more tradesmen and a few more grunts- quality of the reserves will take a big hit however.


----------



## Haggis

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> It's interesting that people still think reserve regiments can be run part time.



The intent and design of Reserve units was that they would (and should) be run by part time members.  The "full time cadre" (call it RFC, RSS FTPS, whatever) is there for continuity.  Decisions are still made by the Class "A" Command Team and leadership.  _However_, the reality is that the logistical and administrative demands on the average Reserve unit now outstrip the ability of the Class "A" members to accomplish what is required by "higher" given only 37.5 (or even 80) paid days. Given that little "paid time" you can do admin and logicitics or training, but not both.



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> If anything this class B cut was/is a good way to bolster the ranks of the regular force.  80% to 90% of soldiers at my regiment who have tour experience are CTing to the regs.   People leave the reserves and go off to do other things, that's nothing new.  The class B cuts however are pushing the experienced soldiers and junior leadership out of the reserves much sooner and their not passing on their experience nor will they be able to help develop the next generation.



I disagree.  The rate of CTs in "your regiment"  ;D is no higher now than before the cuts (in fact, many of the CT requests were submitted prior to the cuts being announced or even considered).  It happens after every tour and is not limited only to soldiers with operational experience.


----------



## Grognard73

Let's be very clear.  The Army has about 1900 B/A or Permanent Class B positions, (Positions at units CBG HQ, etc designed to support the Reserve Force) of which only about 800 are filled.  In addition to that there are around 200+ Reg F backfill Class Bs currently serving.  There are around 600 Class Bs who work for agencies outside the Army but still remain on the Army Units establishment.  There are or were by the end Sep about 1800 Class Bs less than 180 days, taskings ad courses.  Most importantly there are arond 2000 Class Bs working in other places in the Army, (outside the B/A estb, in ASGs, HQ, Reg F units and such.  The Class B reductions are not aimed at reducing the number of B/As, reg f backfill and other key positions.  Decisions are being made by the chain of command to get under control the appetite for unconstrained Class B growth.  When the money gets tough we need to deal with the extra, Class Bs.  This will protect the Class A budget.

Everyone also knows that there are Class Bs at the Units, RQMS and storemen who are required to make the place work.  I think between 10-12 pers full time B and Reg F are required to make the Unit run.  Where we have units with more than that shouldn't we question what they are doing?  Do people in the Units really think the Army is like this?  Times were good, we had lots of flexibility, now those times are tough and changes need to be made to protect the essence of the part time soldier.  There will be issues and it is my hope the chain of command will deal fairly with all of them.   

The CT rate after an AFGHAN tour is still only around 11%.  I don't see massive CTs across the  country.


----------



## dapaterson

My knowledge is about a year out of date, but I think that B/A number is inflated.  After LFRR and the intgration of the Comm Res it maxed out at under 1500.

Units may well claim that only 800 are filled (dubious - units are known for taking "creative liberties" in their reports), but many "vacant" positions see the funding attached used to hire someone else within the unit.  So while the Sgt Fin BA may be vacant, they've oddly enough got a Sgt Inf working class B.

The optimal number of full-time pers to keep a unit ticking is an age old question.  It's rarely confronted, and no one ever seems willing to admit that we've padded units out with nice-to-haves in some areas.

No simple solutions; one problem coming to the front is a lack of discipline in past years, letting things expand out of hand to our current situation.  Nothing happening now was unforseeable; it's just that no one ever wants to be the one to have to say "good times are over".


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Units may well claim that only 800 are filled (dubious - units are known for taking "creative liberties" in their reports)


To be fair to the units, positions where the incumbent is on MATA/PATA, sick leave or long-term TD to a school or elsewhere may be considered "filled" to the extent that someone is getting paid, while from a unit perspective there's no one doing the job.

I haven't heard anyone (anywhere) discuss the impact of the expansion of MATA/PATA benefits from 6 months to 12, but I would gauge the effect on lost personnel to be in a measurable single digit percent of the CF. That's a big deal, especially when you're talking about mid-career folk rather than newbies.


----------



## dapaterson

The overall Reg F MATA/PATA numbers are very low - indeed, surprising low for the size and demographics of the force.

The fill rate for Reg F positions within the Reserves is the lowest of any pri manning in the CF - notionally pri 5, pri 6 units have a higher fill rate for positions than Reserve units (based on the last CF manning report I saw).  

Not to say it's all sunshine in Pri 6 land.

Again, though, our institutional unwillingness to say "too many tasks, not enough resources" hurts us in the end.  My take is that we're excessively tactical in our approach, and rarely consider operational or strategic impacts of "just one more"...


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The overall Reg F MATA/PATA numbers are very low - indeed, surprising low for the size and demographics of the force.


Really? Christ - they must all get posted to my unit before going on leave. We had all three Reg F guys out on MATA/PATA at one point.

I'm joking about that, but I wonder to what extent making it be known to your Reg F career manager that you're trying to have kids is a quick ticket to a two-year stint with the reserves.


----------



## bigcletus

I haven't been on here in a couple of years...however after today I had to check in and see the buzz on the loss of the Cas B's.  I've been on a casual Class B for the last year and a half, @ 1 year contracts.  Today I was told that come 1 Apr, I no longer have a job.  That's fine...however we'll have to see if all the Casual B's are given the boot too. I was also asked if I wanted to change to a Class A at that time...said no, I'll go on the SRR thanks.  I've thru this before.  They had me on weekly  3-4 day Class A days...just so they didn't have to pay me for the weekends.  I decided to "quit' and took a 1 year hiatus.  I received a call within 3 weeks with an offer lol. The job I was doing required specialize training..and I am the only one with those skills in the unit.  I'm medically/physically fit (just did the BFT 3 weeks ago). I have over 30 years of both Reg and Res service. With the CF crying for bodies...I just don't get it.  I do suspect we are down the same old road:  short-term fix that will haunt the Army for many years.  (there, I feel better!!, thanks).

Cheers


----------



## McG

bigcletus said:
			
		

> short-term fix that will haunt the Army for many years.


Arguably, the unrestrained use of Class B to grow Regular Force units & staff has been the short-term fix that is haunting us today.


----------



## helpup

This will haunt us for the forseeable future.  We have the baby boomers who are at the end of 25 now or close to it.  They take a large chunk of the Snr NCO's posn and Officers of senior rank.  They are going to get out, look for other employment. realize that Class B is what they want to do and work with-in any constraints to get that.  Trouble is I have seen too many shiny examples of folks who fall into this profile who for all intents and purposes are retired in thier mind and do not do close to the work they are required to do.  

Personally Double dipping I dont mind and if applied right goes some distance in alieviating manpower issues.  I feel for those starting out a career and relying on class B ( know a few of them as well,) I never fully understood why they didnt go and CT but hey it is thier life.


----------



## CountDC

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I'm joking about that, but I wonder to what extent making it be known to your Reg F career manager that you're trying to have kids is a quick ticket to a two-year stint with the reserves.



Now you tell me.......


----------



## CountDC

helpup said:
			
		

> This will haunt us for the forseeable future.  We have the baby boomers who are at the end of 25 now or close to it.  They take a large chunk of the Snr NCO's posn and Officers of senior rank.  They are going to get out, look for other employment. realize that Class B is what they want to do and work with-in any constraints to get that.  Trouble is I have seen too many shiny examples of folks who fall into this profile who for all intents and purposes are retired in thier mind and do not do close to the work they are required to do.


Unfortunately too often true.  Seen that happen myself - don't care too much as it is only a hobby or extra cash to them.



			
				helpup said:
			
		

> Personally Double dipping I dont mind and if applied right goes some distance in alieviating manpower issues.  I feel for those starting out a career and relying on class B ( know a few of them as well,) I never fully understood why they didnt go and CT but hey it is thier life.



Some people get stuck in the cl b rut because they are comfortable there. They have a job they know in an area they know and with people they know.  Doing a CT would take them out of that comfort zone, put them in a new job, maybe new city with people they never met before. Cutting out some class b positions may be the nudge some need to swallow their fears and make the jump to the dark side.

There are  those that are there because they want to be full time military but their spouse is already in the regular force and they do not want to risk the hassle of being a married service couple.  If the spouse gets posted they can simply quit the class b, move with them and apply for class b at the new location. If both were regular force they could find themselves seperated by posting to different locations. Perhaps going the civilian route would be a good alternative for them.


----------



## helpup

The reservist I am refering to are enjoying the class B out of school, the only person in thier family in the army and just happy going from contract to contract.  They tend to no longer parade with thier unit anymore and take up a posn ( needed or not) with that unit as well.  I always found it funny for the younger guys.  The other halfs I can understand and before anyone says it.  They do need to put food on thier plate.  But why make a career out of class B is and will, I suspect, beyong my understanding


----------



## CountDC

helpup said:
			
		

> The reservist I am refering to are enjoying the class B out of school, the only person in thier family in the army and just happy going from contract to contract.  They tend to no longer parade with thier unit anymore and take up a posn ( needed or not) with that unit as well.  I always found it funny for the younger guys.  The other halfs I can understand and before anyone says it.  They do need to put food on thier plate.  But why make a career out of class B is and will, I suspect, beyong my understanding



Those are the ones I don't understand either other than perhaps they enjoy the freedom to decide the jobs they take and don't want to fully commit to the military having full control.  As for parading with the unit - while on cl b you technically require your employing CO permission to parade with the unit.  They also need to keep the posn at the unit in order to be fully competitive for employment - P Res are priority over Sup Res. I see this as a place where unit CO's need to be given more control.  At the moment the CO can not keep a member from applying for and taking a Cl B.  The only thing he can do is not recommend the member for the job but unless he can point out a real fault they will get hired anyway. I think CO's should have the power to insist a member that has not paraded with the unit in 3 years either transfer to the sup res or return to training with the unit for 3 years before being eligible for Cl B (outside courses, summer training or Unit posns).  Another option would be to have mandatory breaks between Cl Bs - something like 6 months at the unit Cl A between each Cl B period.

Basically they need some way for the Unit CO's to protect the unit posns and ensure they are utilized to the benefit of the unit.


----------



## helpup

True enough and my optics were also colored by RSS-ing for a Ottawa based unit that had the puzzle palace next door.  Also there is a fair amount of that going on in Pet.

I just got a note from a long time friend who got out to do the class B route and is now doing the house husband bit.  Good thing his wife has a good job.


----------



## Rheostatic

CountDC said:
			
		

> Those are the ones I don't understand either other than perhaps they enjoy the freedom to decide the jobs they take and don't want to fully commit to the military having full control.


Exactly. They trade the 15% pay cut for the privilege of being their own career managers.


			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> As for parading with the unit - while on cl b you technically require your employing CO permission to parade with the unit.  They also need to keep the posn at the unit in order to be fully competitive for employment - P Res are priority over Sup Res.


Not sure where this is coming from. Are you confusing the Sup Res with the Primary Reserve List? When a member is on Cl B for more than a year the unit can transfer them to the PRL, freeing up a position in the unit (admittedly, I don't know if this is a CF-wide policy). PRes members don't become part of the Sup Res by taking a Cl B position. Having a Cl B member parade with their reserve unit costs the unit nothing, why wouldn't the CO approve?


			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> I think CO's should have the power to insist a member that has not paraded with the unit in 3 years either transfer to the sup res or return to training with the unit for 3 years before being eligible for Cl B (outside courses, summer training or Unit posns).  Another option would be to have mandatory breaks between Cl Bs - something like 6 months at the unit Cl A between each Cl B period.
> 
> Basically they need some way for the Unit CO's to protect the unit posns and ensure they are utilized to the benefit of the unit.


This is baffling. You're saying the member on Cl B should be required to interrupt their full-time job every 3 years to work part time? Or go to the Sup Res? And do what?


----------



## CountDC

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Not sure where this is coming from. Are you confusing the Sup Res with the Primary Reserve List? When a member is on Cl B for more than a year the unit can transfer them to the PRL, freeing up a position in the unit (admittedly, I don't know if this is a CF-wide policy).



No - it used to be that members would leave the reg f, transfer to the sup res and then pick and choice the Cl B they wanted using the old boy network.  Now it is supposed to be that P Res members are given priority. Not sure about the mandatory transfer to the PRL. It used to be that a member on Cl B had to be kept in the home unit position as they were expected to return there at the end of the period.



			
				Rheostatic said:
			
		

> PRes members don't become part of the Sup Res by taking a Cl B position.



Nor did I indicate that anywhere.



			
				Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Having a Cl B member parade with their reserve unit costs the unit nothing, why wouldn't the CO approve?



It is the employing CO that has to approve not the home unit CO. He may not approve as he does not want someone working for him doing both jobs.  When I first did a Cl B at LFAA my home unit wanted me to continue with them on evenings and the request was rejected. As far as the RSM at LFAA was concerned I was paid and employed with them 24/7 and no one else was going to abuse me.



			
				Rheostatic said:
			
		

> This is baffling. You're saying the member on Cl B should be required to interrupt their full-time job every 3 years to work part time? Or go to the Sup Res? And do what?



I am saying the members should not be able to turn Cl B into a full time job as they were never meant to be. Cl B is intended to fill a short term need.  If the job requires a full time perm person then they should either create a CL B/A, C or Reg F posn and staff it. On top of that the people we were talking about are those jumping from Cl B to Cl B so obviously their "full time" job has been interrupted all ready.

Again - never mentioned going to the Sup Res.  I mentioned return to training at the Unit which is what unit positions are for.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Haggis said:
			
		

> I disagree.  The rate of CTs in "your regiment"  ;D is no higher now than before the cuts (in fact, many of the CT requests were submitted prior to the cuts being announced or even considered).  It happens after every tour and is not limited only to soldiers with operational experience.


I'll steal a great quote- A monkey doesn't let go of the branch it's holding onto until it grabs another one 

If I was a betting man and had an inside track I would wager that some of those soldiers are waiting until they have all ducks in a row before officially submitting their paperwork.

This week I've had at least 8 soldiers approach me about class B. I said the same thing to all of them.
Get a full time civilian job or go regular force if you enjoy the military, the days of class B jobs seem to be over.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Just because there is a Class B hiring freeze doesn't mean that there aren't Class B jobs open/unfilled.  I just spoke with a close friend this morning about Cl B positions, and she (currently Cl B/A) said that they can't find enough people to fill the vacant Cl B positions out there now.  Now, these are established positions in the ARE, so in effect Cl B Annotated A positions, but still, there isn't enough people applying for jobs, and those positions remain vacant.  

Now thats only in LFAA and certain units/subunits, I can't comment on the other Areas.


----------



## Occam

I'm still seeing on the order of 5-10 Class B Employment Opportunity messages every day...if there's a hiring freeze, not everyone knows about it or is affected by it.


----------



## ArmyRick

I will say this. Our unit could not function without the help of class b reservist. There is still a man power shortage of positions and they are not likely to be fullfilled within the foreseeable future by Reg F positions due to Op tempo and manning in priority units. Now keep in mind, our unit reservist work hard and some put in serious field time.


Thats my 2 cents.


----------



## McG

So, here is a crazy idea to some of the underlying problems (as I see them) of unrestrained Class B bloat.  As I see it we need a system that:

prevents just anyone with a budget from using money for empire building
ensures full time personnel growth has oversight & control at the appropriate levels
allows full time pers to be centrally managed so that low priority positions are not filling-up and leaving high priority work unfilled
ensures uniformity of training standards in full time pers
provides an option for those pers who still want to serve, but cannot keep doing the postings
provides a financial incentive for pers to continue serving when they reach the point where they are ready to get out
does not provide a financial incentive that encourages pers, who would have kept serving, to reduce their utility to the CF

To do this, I propose that Class B employment > 100 days be prohibited outside of Primary Reserve Units & formations.

Instead, we create a "limited obligation" regular force TOS that are renewable on a three year cycle.  The "limited obligation" means the regular force soldier never gets a posting out of the geographic region and is paid at the reserve rate.

A "limited obligation" regular force soldier would be managed by the same career manager as any other regular force member of the same occupation.  Come APS, the "limited obligation" soldier would never receive a cost move to another location but there would be no restrictions against no-cost moves.  The "limited obligation" soldier could be moved to fill a higher priority job, for career development reasons, or to avoid stagnant thinking within a staff organization.  Promotions could still occur for "limited obligation" soldiers, but they would be penalized by point reduction at the boards to reflect the reduced utility of not being geographically postable.

Double-dipping would no longer be possible as this is simply an incentive to reduce one's utility to the CF by becoming unpostable.  However, to provide an incentive for pers considering retirement to not leave entirely, pensionable "limited obligation" soldiers could stop paying into the pension (thus freezing the benefit at its current level) and recieve a pay top-up (so they make the same pay as though they were not "limited obligation").

Unrestrained growth would be put to a stop because the "limited obligation" still fills a regular force establishment position, and so any growth would have to go through the same checks & approvals as are required for getting new regular force PYs now.

There are a lot more finer hand details that would need to go into this concept.  Occupations at or above PML would not be allowed to issue/renew "limited obligation" TOS (so those pers who choose to be of lower utility would be let go to make room for postable pers).  At the same time, there should be an occupation manning level threshold above which pers may only convert to "limited obligation" TOS on expiry of a "full obligation" regular force TOS, but below this manning level threshold it would be acceptable for direct reserve component transfer into a "limited obligation" TOS.

If we were to go down this crazy path, implementation should involve identifying every Class B possition outside of reserve units/brigades that has existed for three or more years.  All of those possitions would be converted to regular force and the incumbents would be invited to accept a component transfer and "limited obligation" TOS.


----------



## dapaterson

Cutting the double dip will doom this interesting and useful plan right away.  As long as we have many senior folks (3+ bars) riding the gravy train, no one wants it to stop.  I recall the full Col Reg F who appointed himself to a Res F LCol position (at full pay as a Col) and did not understand why anyone squawked; I recall the Maj who switched to the Res F from the bottom of the merit list pointing out that between his annuity and Res pay he was making more than any BGen.

The Army is addicted to the cheap and easy fix that class B employment provides - look no further than LFDTS who refuse to come up with a plan for the future that doesn't include the massive class B augmentation "needed because troops are deployed and can't be tasked for augmentation".  How about running courses in unit lines instead - move the training to the troops, instead of the other way around?  How about doing better scheduling?  How about cutting the bloat from the HQs of LFDTS and CTC?  (And the Land Staff, which is remarkably large and slow).

Thought for the day: About 1 in 8 Regular Force members in the TES are in the NCR.  That's a massive overhead for any organization; cutting 10% of the Reg F PYS from NDHQ would free up over 600 PYs to do real tasks...


----------



## a_majoor

Try 31 CBGHQ D&S Platoon:

1 X LCol
2X Captains
2X CWO
1X WO

0 X Lt
0X Sgt
0X Mcpl
0X Pte/Cpl

While 31 CBGHQ has shed lots of OR's, they can still maintain a bloated establishment for an unmanned element (not to mention a half platoon of LCol "ACOS" positions).....just don't go looking for clerks to help with admin or paperwork.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Cutting the double dip will doom this interesting and useful plan right away.  As long as we have many senior folks (3+ bars) riding the gravy train, no one wants it to stop.  I recall the full Col Reg F who appointed himself to a Res F LCol position (at full pay as a Col) and did not understand why anyone squawked; I recall the Maj who switched to the Res F from the bottom of the merit list pointing out that between his annuity and Res pay he was making more than any BGen.


This exactly illustrates one reason why we need a new system.  A few at the top are living fat & happy (in positions they may very well have created for themselves) as overpaid and less-useful bloat.  At the same time civilian term employees are being let go & reservists at the bottom are seeing TOS canceled to save a few dollars.


----------



## CountDC

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Cutting the double dip will doom this interesting and useful plan right away.  As long as we have many senior folks (3+ bars) riding the gravy train, no one wants it to stop.  I recall the full Col Reg F who appointed himself to a Res F LCol position (at full pay as a Col) and did not understand why anyone squawked; I recall the Maj who switched to the Res F from the bottom of the merit list pointing out that between his annuity and Res pay he was making more than any BGen.



Lol - I think lots of us know similar cases.  My fav was the CWO that had his posn changed to res just as he started retirement leave and slid right into the posn so he was paid reg f and res f pay.  See if I can remember how it worked.  Early 90's, approx 1.5 years "accumulated", retirement, liar leave.  Reg F pay and Res F pay.......volem maybe??  Can't remember now how it worked.  Once his leave ended he started to draw pension and get Res F pay too.   Maximum pension with 33 years in.  Really wish I could remember how it worked.


----------



## jak3_dude

Hey guys, just wanted to make an area where we can discuss the current fund shortage for reserves.

I heard there's one unit down in London who are down to one training night a month and apparently some are on complete stand down until the new Fiscal year (April 1st, not to be confused with new Calender year).

I only started hearing about this tonight because my BMQ course (this was going to be weekend 6, ie. half way mark) has been put on stand down.  We all have training with our units, but no more BMQ until either some money is found (very unlikely) or the new fiscal year arrives (4 months from now) and chances are if we can't re-start until April they are going to make us restart BMQ from week 1.  I heard this is unprecedented and that a course has never been canceled like this before.  

Anyone else in the same boat as me (in my BMQ course or not)?

I'm hoping for the best (they'll take off where we left) but expecting the worst (re-starting at day 1).

I love how our Sergeant explained it to us: "Okay troops, basically, this is what happened" *draws a dollar sign on the board* "and now" *crosses out dollar sign* "any questions?"  too funny

Every one here is pretty bummed about it.  People who've been kicked off BMQ have priority in new courses popping up over new recruits who've been waiting for BMQ and it's messing up entire training schedules, like university students were supposed to get on the early SQ course in the summer and then do QL3 later in the summer, but now, if we don't graduate until mid summer maybe even later, we may be lucky to make it in time to a late summer SQ.  Some rumours that we may not even graduate this summer but take it back up in our equivelent timed course next year (October)

Unhappy faces all around, especially recruiting officers who can't even promise prospective recruits actual course dates.  Our unit is at roughly 50% size and the recruiting officer had finally been given the green light to recruit to make out unit 100% size (about another 100 members) and now he can't even work on that problem since he almost has to go "Yeah, training will start some time next year".  Sergeant is unhappy because there are about 30 of us Private Recruits who can't really do anything around the unit other than shovel snow (which is what we did tonight) until we're BMQ qualified and the likes.

Basically things aren't pretty over here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

That's pretty well it in a nutshell.


----------



## tango22a

Recce Guy:

Same old song:  "The fickle finger of fate having f**ked moves on!!"

Small question: But why is it ALWAYS the PRes??


tango22a


----------



## Dean22

Yea, the reserves are packed full I was told by the guy in charge of the files for reserves at CFRC that the infantry units in Hamilton, Ontario are full for the next one to *two* years.


----------



## George Wallace

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Yea, the reserves are packed full I was told by the guy in charge of the files for reserves at CFRC that the infantry units in Hamilton, Ontario are full for the next one to *two* years.





THIS IS NOT what the topic is about, nor what was said in the previous posts.


----------



## DirtyDog

tango22a said:
			
		

> Small question: But why is it ALWAYS the PRes??
> 
> 
> tango22a


Who else would it be?


----------



## Flap Jack

Hey Jake, I feel for you man. I got all my kit on Thursday and was supposed to leave on BMOQ yesterday when I received a phone call saying it was canceled. 

I guess there's nothing we can really do except make the best of it. At least there's still the one night a week (in my case) where the other OCdts can learn and help out with the unit.


----------



## Larkvall

My BMQ was supposed to start in January and it was cancelled.


----------



## dregeneau

It is not just BMQ's being affected. Driver Wheeled courses have been put on hold, as well as DP2A courses for us in the infantry, and Comm's.


----------



## Larkvall

dredre said:
			
		

> It is not just BMQ's being affected. Driver Wheeled courses have been put on hold, as well as DP2A courses for us in the infantry, and Comm's.



Yes, Driver Wheeled and Comms courses were cancelled here too. Also, the number of pers were limited on a winter warfare course and recruiting has been pared down.


----------



## lawandorder

I have only been in long enough to experience a state of constant growth in the CF/Reserve.  This isn't really a full step back yet, but more of a maintain status quo.  If you've been lucky to attend any of the town halls on this issue, multiple have taken place in the NCR, then you'll understand a little bit about why the PRes has been hit, and its not just the PRes.  Some things have to take place. IE Commitments to Operations.  Bulk of the funds have to go there, and should go there.  No short changing anyone on deployment.  Force regeneration of vehicles also has to take place. New vehicles of the CMBG's and the battalions is a priority. While units want to expand and grow/replenish from those who've released, there are other priorities t get taken care of for the greater good of the CF.

Its not easy cutting money from any budget, eventually someone has to feel it somewhere, and right now for the short term its the PRes, but things will turn around.


----------



## PuckChaser

I've heard there's been quite a few RegF courses cancelled at CFSCE until the new fiscal year. The PRes is getting hit hard as usual, but everyone else is feeling a little pinch too.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Yea, the reserves are packed full I was told by the guy in charge of the files for reserves at CFRC that the infantry units in Hamilton, Ontario are full for the next one to *two* years.



Either you're lying or he is out to lunch.
Every year int he reserves there is a VERY large turn over of trained reservists who
1. Transfer to the reg force
2. Transfer to different regiments within the reseves.
3. Quit the reserves.
4. Get kicked out of the reserves.

If a unit didn't recruit for 2 whole yes the reserve regiment would basically fail to be an effective working unit anymore.




			
				jak3_dude said:
			
		

> Hey guys, just wanted to make an area where we can discuss the current fund shortage for reserves.
> 
> I heard there's one unit down in London who are down to one training night a month and apparently some are on complete stand down until the new Fiscal year (April 1st, not to be confused with new Calender year).
> 
> I only started hearing about this tonight because my BMQ course (this was going to be weekend 6, ie. half way mark) has been put on stand down.  We all have training with our units, but no more BMQ until either some money is found (very unlikely) or the new fiscal year arrives (4 months from now) and chances are if we can't re-start until April they are going to make us restart BMQ from week 1.  I heard this is unprecedented and that a course has never been canceled like this before.
> 
> Anyone else in the same boat as me (in my BMQ course or not)?
> 
> I'm hoping for the best (they'll take off where we left) but expecting the worst (re-starting at day 1).
> 
> I love how our Sergeant explained it to us: "Okay troops, basically, this is what happened" *draws a dollar sign on the board* "and now" *crosses out dollar sign* "any questions?"  too funny
> 
> Every one here is pretty bummed about it.  People who've been kicked off BMQ have priority in new courses popping up over new recruits who've been waiting for BMQ and it's messing up entire training schedules, like university students were supposed to get on the early SQ course in the summer and then do QL3 later in the summer, but now, if we don't graduate until mid summer maybe even later, we may be lucky to make it in time to a late summer SQ.  Some rumours that we may not even graduate this summer but take it back up in our equivelent timed course next year (October)
> 
> Unhappy faces all around, especially recruiting officers who can't even promise prospective recruits actual course dates.  Our unit is at roughly 50% size and the recruiting officer had finally been given the green light to recruit to make out unit 100% size (about another 100 members) and now he can't even work on that problem since he almost has to go "Yeah, training will start some time next year".  Sergeant is unhappy because there are about 30 of us Private Recruits who can't really do anything around the unit other than shovel snow (which is what we did tonight) until we're BMQ qualified and the likes.
> 
> Basically things aren't pretty over here.



As far as I am aware Reserve units were stood down a couple of extra weeks in January.  I can' see them being shut down until April or only training one night a month. Reserves need to reach certain levels of training with their soldiers and certain skills taught each year. One night a month won't accomplish that and if were the case it would be a waste of money to even have people show up for that. You're just listening to rumor mill and whoever your instructors are SHOULD be stopping that shit.

Courses are different. All the courses being run have been put on hold until April 2010. We have instructors and students on both PLQ serials and BMQ serials told their respective courses are on hold until April so the army can get a hold of the money they have been pissing away and see where they stand.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Law & Order said:
			
		

> I have only been in long enough to experience a state of constant growth in the CF/Reserve.  This isn't really a full step back yet, but more of a maintain status quo.  If you've been lucky to attend any of the town halls on this issue, multiple have taken place in the NCR, then you'll understand a little bit about why the PRes has been hit, and its not just the PRes.  Some things have to take place. IE Commitments to Operations.  Bulk of the funds have to go there, and should go there.  No short changing anyone on deployment.  Force regeneration of vehicles also has to take place. New vehicles of the CMBG's and the battalions is a priority. While units want to expand and grow/replenish from those who've released, there are other priorities t get taken care of for the greater good of the CF.
> 
> Its not easy cutting money from any budget, eventually someone has to feel it somewhere, and right now for the short term its the PRes, but things will turn around.



Sorry. I been watching this shit for forty years, and while some of your points are valid, I'm not buying what your smoking.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> As far as I am aware Reserve units were stood down a couple of extra weeks in January.  I can' see them being shut down until April or only training one night a month. Reserves need to reach certain levels of training with their soldiers and certain skills taught each year. One night a month won't accomplish that and if were the case it would be a waste of money to even have people show up for that. You're just listening to rumor mill and whoever your instructors are SHOULD be stopping that shit.



Sorry. I'm looking at my unit calender right now and it's one half day a month until Apr at least.


----------



## jak3_dude

thanks for confirming that fact recceguy, now I don't look like an idiot ;D

my mom was talking to my uncle this morning (who is RegForce) and he said that there have been some Junior Leadership something-or-rather courses that were canceled as well (a course for MCpls, can't remember what it's called entirely) and there are delays in certain areas (although my mom didn't specify if he said that was also due to budget cuts).

Also the Winter Warfare course at my unit a couple weeks back was canceled entirely as well, not just limited numbers.


----------



## DirtyDog

jak3_dude said:
			
		

> my mom was talking to my uncle this morning (who is RegForce) and he said that there have been some Junior Leadership something-or-rather courses that were canceled as well (a course for MCpls, can't remember what it's called entirely)


Primary Leadership Qaulification (Infantry) or PLQ I Mod 6.  Yes, I had heard from guys in rear party that they shouldn't expect one of those courses any time soon and they basically were told there was no money for anything.  I have been busy on courses and what not and haven't heard those particular points passed on to me from the CoC.


----------



## Pikache

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Primary Leadership Qaulification (Infantry) or PLQ I Mod 6.  Yes, I had heard from guys in rear party that they shouldn't expect one of those courses any time soon and they basically were told there was no money for anything.  I have been busy on courses and what not and haven't heard those particular points passed on to me from the CoC.


and it's funny because only 2 years ago, there was this mass push to produce MCpls


----------



## Pikache

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry. I'm looking at my unit calender right now and it's one half day a month until Apr at least.


same with my unit. 

i find it quite unbelievable that couple million bucks can't be found to at least pay for one half day training night per week, out of a multi billion dollar budget


----------



## blacktriangle

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry. I'm looking at my unit calender right now and it's one half day a month until Apr at least.



recceguy,

You've been around the block 10 or 20 times. Has this ever happened before? 

I remember back in 06-08 the PRes was all about recruiting and having us train as often as possible. Talk about building it up to tear it down. I have a feeling that there are a bunch of PRes Pte-MCpl's that are relying on that  Class A employment that they had been able to depend on for so long. Of course Operational needs should be priority, but wow.

It seems kind of silly when Crew Commanders are going to have to become Crew trainers at Mcdonalds to pay their car insurance...  :-\ 

Is there really no money to even take the guys in every parade night and have them work on some PT and weapons handling?


----------



## bran

jak3_dude said:
			
		

> I only started hearing about this tonight because my BMQ course (this was going to be weekend 6, ie. half way mark) has been put on stand down.  We all have training with our units, but no more BMQ until either some money is found (very unlikely) or the new fiscal year arrives (4 months from now) and chances are if we can't re-start until April they are going to make us restart BMQ from week 1.  I heard this is unprecedented and that a course has never been canceled like this before.



Just wondering what part of the country your doing your BMQ in?


----------



## jak3_dude

I'm a reservist with 763 Communications Ottawa.  Our BMQ is at Cannaught Ranges.
So yeah, Ottawa is the answer to your question.

and thank you DirtyDog for clearing up that name for me.


----------



## multihobbist

I'm really confused now... what happens to the
new MLVW,rucksacks and rainjacket now?


----------



## Jarnhamar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry. I'm looking at my unit calender right now and it's one half day a month until Apr at least.



I'm shocked, wow. I really didn't expect that. So much for my credibility!

Not only will that really hurt the young soldiers who depend on those training nights and week-end ex's for money but what about the units over all level of training? Makes all those nights of scrambling to get IBTS out of the way seem futile.

Is there that much of a difference between regiments that one  can have 1 half day a month until april  and in another regiment soldiers preparing for live fire platoon attacks for 2 full platoons worth of soldiers on a weekend ex?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

multihobbist said:
			
		

> I'm really confused now... what happens to the
> new MLVW,rucksacks and rainjacket now?



That would be money already spent........


----------



## Fishbone Jones

popnfresh said:
			
		

> recceguy,
> 
> You've been around the block 10 or 20 times. Has this ever happened before?
> 
> I remember back in 06-08 the PRes was all about recruiting and having us train as often as possible. Talk about building it up to tear it down. I have a feeling that there are a bunch of PRes Pte-MCpl's that are relying on that  Class A employment that they had been able to depend on for so long. Of course Operational needs should be priority, but wow.
> 
> It seems kind of silly when Crew Commanders are going to have to become Crew trainers at Mcdonalds to pay their car insurance...  :-\
> 
> Is there really no money to even take the guys in every parade night and have them work on some PT and weapons handling?


In Germany, in the 70’s, we had Tank Trains that would transport us and our tanks to various bases and exercise areas. Most of these were within a few hours by normal train. There were a number of ‘priorities’ for trains on the, Deutsche Bahn, 37 seems to ring a bell. Tank trains sometimes took over 24 hrs to get somewhere else in Germany because we would pull into a siding and wait hours while a garbage train had to go by. The Tank Train had the lowest priority on the rail system.

The PRes is the Tank Train of the Canadian Army.

Yes, we’ve gone through this before, about every fifteen years. It is feast or famine. During the good times, no one seems to have the foresight to squirrel away a few seeds and nuts for those cold famine days, when the sun won’t come out. So here we are again. There is nothing to be gained by trying to assign blame.

An option that has been used in previous times was ‘pink’ or ‘green’ pay sheets. These were, basically, a pay sheet that was signed and handed into the unit. It provided a backup if you got hurt while parading. It was nothing more than a Unit IOU. “IF, and WHEN, times get better, IF and WHEN, the money comes in and IF and When we can afford to pay you, we’ll try pay you back for some of your time.” Not perfect, and I’m not even sure if it was legal, but it allowed a few more parade days to keep people interested and stopped them from drifting away.

What people have to remember is, whether you think it is fair or equitable, the higher ups are not doing this because they are bored and want to jerk your chain. There is a crisis and sacrifices need to be made. All the bitching and moaning is not going to make one iota of difference to the plan. Its set, it won’t change, so you might as well sit down and think it through and try come up with viable and doable alternatives to tied you through this mess. Use your indignation energy for good ideas. We will not get out of this unscathed. We will, again, lose equipment, skills, people and in some circles, respect, amongst other things. Someone has to be low man. 

Get used to hearing BOHICA (google is your friend). You are the Tank Train.


----------



## DirtyDog

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> and it's funny because only 2 years ago, there was this mass push to produce MCpls


I think it pretty much happened, or atleast they got a lot of people qualified (me being one of them).



			
				HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> and potentially go into OPSEC issues, so shhhhhh


Hence why I stopped short of saying anything


----------



## DirtyDog

Like I mentioned earlier, I've been on ex and course for the last while and have missed those regular points that get passed down.

What exactly has happend?  Not just to the reserves, but reg force as well.  Were budgets massively slashed?  Is money being re-directed for some reason?  What brought all this on?

Is there a thread discussing this?

Like I said, I'm a little behind on all of this.  Just heard rumours....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Like I mentioned earlier, I've been on ex and course for the last while and have missed those regular points that get passed down.
> 
> What exactly has happend?  Not just to the reserves, but reg force as well.  Were budgets massively slashed?  Is money being re-directed for some reason?  What brought all this on?
> 
> Is there a thread discussing this?
> 
> Like I said, I'm a little behind on all of this.  Just heard rumours....



I think the higher ups just realized that 9 (ok almost 9) years of war has drained the coffers.....

My  :2c: ..... your milage may vary......


----------



## PuckChaser

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> What exactly has happend?  Not just to the reserves, but reg force as well.  Were budgets massively slashed?  Is money being re-directed for some reason?  What brought all this on?



CLS stated at a recent townhall that the Ops and Trg portion of the budget has been stretched thin, due to ops in Afghanistan, but you can probably bet a big chunk of it is gone because of the Olympics.  According to him, we haven't lost a cent in the budget, but there are a lot of ancillary costs to doing business overseas that can creep up and zap a budget pretty fast. I'm not sure how much of the costs he outlined to us are public knowledge, but I'd be happy to drop the few figures the CLS dropped and that I remember in a PM to anyone interested.


----------



## brihard

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I'm shocked, wow. I really didn't expect that. So much for my credibility!
> 
> Not only will that really hurt the young soldiers who depend on those training nights and week-end ex's for money but what about the units over all level of training? Makes all those nights of scrambling to get IBTS out of the way seem futile.
> 
> Is there that much of a difference between regiments that one  can have 1 half day a month until april  and in another regiment soldiers preparing for live fire platoon attacks for 2 full platoons worth of soldiers on a weekend ex?



Flawed-

Different CBGs have dealt with their budget shortfalls differently. Ours (33CBG for anyone else), fortunately, has only shut 'er down until January 21st or thereabouts. 31CBG and 32CBG are, from what I hear, much worse off, including some units not parading until April 1st. Probably cause of all those gucci courses 31 and 32 brigades always get to spend money on.  ;D

But yeah, crappy deal all around. Telling my troops they're unemployed for two months wasn't the highlight of my training year.


----------



## Haggis

*Flawed/Brihard*:  Most 33 CBG units are in far better shape financially than many others.

*Recceguy*:  Yeah, I've seen this cycle, too, in the past thirty years. but never, ever this bad.

Notwithstanding the CLS's remarks at the town halls, one must ask the obvious question:  How in the Hell did the Army get to this stage without anyone in the puzzle palace seeing and heeding the warning signs?

There are untold negative second and third order effects to this whole mess. 

The Army Reserve will lose credibility as a national institiution and a stable employer.  Soliders will seek replacement sources of income elsewhere. Potential recruits will say "no, I'm not working for an orgainzation that unreliable".

Soldiers will leave, either through CTs or releases, and this will impact the Army Reserve's capability to meet force generation requirements. (G20, TFA etc.)

I really, really hope this is just a financial "flinch" and someone sees a better way to do business.


----------



## jak3_dude

yeah, as far as I know each regiment is in charge of their own budget, we at 763 for example still have Trg once a week

I really can't wait to see how they're going to adjust for all this (training and qualification wise) I really hope this means we'll see a summer BMQ here, because restarting in April conflicts with my life guarding course and exams, but such is life, I guess I'll just have to wait for October most likely.


----------



## vonGarvin

Here is a question from a guy who hasn't been in the Militia for over 20 years: do they still do the pink sign in sheets?  I recall that there were times when we went on Tuesday Nights to play floor hockey (aka "PT") and sign in to be covered.  Other times, on the parade nights, due to budget cuts, we signed them as well.  When the money flooded back in, we got paid for those times that we signed them.


----------



## jak3_dude

I've only ever seen the normal sign in sheets, never pink ones, maybe some of the other members have a better answer.


----------



## VIChris

We're doing alright in the west at the moment. We were told to expect some training to drop off, and have been on 3 nights a week in the time since I was sworn in in October, but so far no major shortages have been announced. This is for us on the island, not sure about the rest of 39CBG though. We have our Soldiers Christmas Dinner tonight, followed by a short leave until the 10th of Jan. My BMQ is supposed to start the weekend of the 22nd, will post up here if anything changes.

To those of you who are affected by all this, I'm sorry to hear about it. Hope you guys can get by without the extra cash alright. I don't have a primary job right now due to a layoff, and I'd be downright screwed if my little reserve cash flow dried up altogether. Though I was warned right off the bat not to rely on this money, sometimes life throws curveballs at you.


----------



## Pikache

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Hence why I stopped short of saying anything


sorry if it seemed like I was singling you out. it was more of a general precautionary thing


----------



## dapaterson

"What happened?"  is a simple question with many complex parts to the answer.

The big "STOP" being felt right now is due to timing.  While the Olympics and ongoing deployed operations have some impact, another big piece of the puzzle is the way DND's finances are run.

The fiscal year runs from 01 April through 31 March.  Funds allocated by the government must be spent within that window (there are some ways to carry forward money or reserve funds for future payments in future years, but those are mostly corporate, not at the unit level, and not relevant to this discussion).

DND gets money from the Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates, votes in Parliament.  Those have gone mostly as expected.

However, in this fiscal year (FY 09/10) there were a number of DND issues that had significant impacts that were not properly planned out.  (issue #1).  As the various organizations in DND fed up their plans for 09/10 to the top level, they too had new demands beyond available resources (issue #2).

Deciding what to do and what not to do requires tradeoffs and decisions at the top level - and that's not the CDS.  The CDS commands the Forces, but it's the Deputy Minister (a public servant) who is responsible for the Department's finances.  This year, working with the CDS and other senior staff the DM delayed approval of the budgets for the Navy, Army, Air Force and other top-level organizations in DND  (delay is issue #3).

The Army went forward with its plan for 09/10, pending its approval.  Unfortunately, the approval arrived in late August, with 5/12 of the fiscal year already gone.  Meaning the opportunities to change the plan were extremely limited - projects were already launched; for the Reserves, summer training already conducted.  The summer training period (June-August) represents roughly 45% of overall Reserve pay expenditures for the Army (it's been a few years since I monitored this, but that should be roughly correct).  Plus April and May before the summer - say another 10-15% of pay spent.

So: late approval of the plan.  And some of the things the Army wanted to do were not supported - meaning no funding for them.  And some things being done elsewhere in the department were more expensive - meaning some cuts to the Army's allocation to fund those "corporate pressures".

So, a perfect storm: Told late that there was less money than expected, and some activities not supported, but the year was already 5/12 gone, and nearly 60% of the Reserve pay was already spent.  Add time for staff to analyze the situation (Sept); time to communicate that to lower levels (Oct) and time for those lower levels (Area and CBG) to make their own plans and react (Nov) and the impact becomes more and more pronounced - less and less time to make the same sized reductions.

Each Land Force Area (LFA) and each CBG (or other formation) in each LFA will be hit to differing extents, depending on how they are running things; some are cutting large collective training exercises from Jan/Feb or Mar, but regular unit training will continue; others are scaling back to varying degrees to meet the reductions.  Individual Training, such as BMQ, DP1, Driver courses and PLQ are all funded out of the Land Force Training System in Kingston; they too are seeing reductions and are pulling the plug on some courses to remain within their allocation.

Next year?  The Army is going to be more conservative in its planning at all levels.  This will probably mean (initially) less funding available, but through the year some additional funds may be released to pursue activities.  I suspect many units will add planned but unfunded exercises to their calendars, ready to be activated should the funds come available.  However, given that the plan will be more conservative to begin with, any reductions won't sting as badly ,as they'll be spread over the full year, and not concentrated in the last three months of the fiscal year.

Just my 2c; take it for what it's worth.


----------



## brihard

That was a fantastic summary, thank you. Everything's a lot more clear now.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Here in the Army of the East (well reserve army that is   ;D ) with the cancellation of Maritime Raider 10 and I suspect SouthBound Trooper X that monies are being reallocated in order to fun training until the new fiscal year (or so I have been told our Oops Cell)

So take this with a grain of salt........


EDITED TO FIX ROMAN NUMERALS


----------



## blacktriangle

Now would be a good time for the Navy to recruit. Put a couple recruiters at every armoury...

"Do you guys like to get paid?"

 :2c:


----------



## vonGarvin

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Now would be a *good time for the Navy to recruit*. Put a couple recruiters at every armoury...
> 
> "Do you guys like to get paid?"
> 
> :2c:


Since they wear NCDs now, at least they'll be visible. ;D


----------



## Haggis

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Here is a question from a guy who hasn't been in the Militia for over 20 years: do they still do the pink sign in sheets?



No.  That process was forbidden when NDHQ Instruction 2-93 was issued stating that "voluntary (i.e. unpaid) service of any type is forbidden" (or words to that effect).  CF Mil Pers Instruction 20-04 perpetuates that prohibition.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> No.  That process was forbidden when NDHQ Instruction 2-93 was issued stating that "voluntary (i.e. unpaid) service of any type is forbidden" (or words to that effect).  CF Mil Pers Instruction 20-04 perpetuates that prohibition.



It's more of a CBI issue - the pay CBIs use the term "shall" for pay - it's not optional.

That being said, a lot of Reserve admin is done "off the books" by senior staff; sometimes, there are paysheets approved for such work, sometimes not.


----------



## Dean22

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Either you're lying or he is out to lunch.
> Every year int he reserves there is a VERY large turn over of trained reservists who
> 1. Transfer to the reg force
> 2. Transfer to different regiments within the reseves.
> 3. Quit the reserves.
> 4. Get kicked out of the reserves.




No, he was correct. I called the unit and there next training BMQ that they would be able to accept applications is September 2010 and there are "A TON" of people ahead of me in the process for that unit so I am just going for the next best thing which, I actually am pretty interested in now which, is another unit in the same city that needs people (Sig Ops).

The only thing that seems to be getting into Reserve units by me is co-op for high school students OR if you live out of the city they "want" people who don't live in the city (I don't know why).


----------



## 1feral1

jak3_dude said:
			
		

> Hey guys, just wanted to make an area where we can discuss the current fund shortage for reserves.
> 
> I heard there's one unit down in London who are down to one training night a month and apparently some are on complete stand down until the new Fiscal year (April 1st, not to be confused with new Calender year).



What ever happened to troop retention? A 1/2 day a month is crap, considering this is supposed to be a part time job, and times ae still tough for many. I am sure many will leave because of this, and you can't blame them really. All that $ worth training them up, and then no trg days, what a waste of money. At 1/2 a month what trg is even worth it? It will be taken up on maintenance of eqpt and admin.

Personally in the Res Unit I am with (allbeit Australia) , we in a TSU role get no fewer than 4, and no more than 5 full 6 hr trg days on Tuesdays from 1600-2200, and then 1 or more weekends a month. Since my 1st day with the Reserves here in August, I have clocked in 27 days, which included some trg outside wknds and trg nights. All tax free too.

Someone should start writing their MPs, but would that help anyways?

Absolutly pathetic.

OWDU


----------



## aesop081

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Someone should start writing their MPs,



Write theri MPs about what ?

That DND isnt getting as much money as before and has to make tough choices. I understand this is a problem but what would you cut instead ?

If you think its only the Pres taking a hit, i've got news for ya........


----------



## 1feral1

Mate, I was taking a desperate stab, but it possibly should be noted that the Reserve members will drop, and infact it is supposed to be a part time job, but at 1/2 days pay a month, that won't even/barely buy a 24 pack of beer. How can a student even get spening money out of that?

Sure the lifers, say SGTs and above might stick around as they have careers in other professions and are much more settled than a 17 yr old student for example. 

I would write my MP to let him know my unhappiness with the situation.

Anything is better than nothing.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Dissident

I don't feel so bad with all my Monthly Wednesday now. I could use a couple of week end for some field time, but it looks like others are much harder hit then we are.

As far as I am concerned, it's just time to get creative. The reserve never offered enough training with class A days only to ensure adequate training anyways (IMHO), so I have been looking on what else to help the guys along. 

We might not be able to sign a pink sheet or anything like that. But nothing is going to stop civilians from gathering at a civi range and do some shooting on their own, or start a fitness club, or go on ride alongs with local police, or get together and have a BBQ, or even go camping together.

My platoon mates are aware of the financial situation. When challenged I can't help but to be proud of the response and solutions they have come up with to fill the void from those empty training week ends.


----------



## rormson

This "standown" is serious. As some have noted in these threads, it will impact the credibility of the Reserve Force to attract and retain talent in the long term. There is no question that the Federal Deficit (which is part of the reason for the funding cut backs) will affect all departments including DND. The easy out, however, was to lean on the Reserves. What happened to the "one army" mantra?

After the huge recruiting effort over the past 5 years (i.e. since the LFRR) the potential to turn back the clock on progress is very real. The "take it with a grain of salt" view is missing the point. The cancellation of IT (dvr wheeled, BMQ, PLQ, BOTP, etc.) will have lasting impacts. The CO's of the affected regiments know this and that's why they are encouraging members to maintain their PT and camaraderie between the sparse trg dates.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Dissident said:
			
		

> I don't feel so bad with all my Monthly Wednesday now. I could use a couple of week end for some field time, but it looks like others are much harder hit then we are.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, it's just time to get creative. The reserve never offered enough training with class A days only to ensure adequate training anyways (IMHO), so I have been looking on what else to help the guys along.
> 
> We might not be able to sign a pink sheet or anything like that. But nothing is going to stop civilians from gathering at a civi range and do some shooting on their own, or start a fitness club, or go on ride alongs with local police, or get together and have a BBQ, or even go camping together.
> 
> My platoon mates are aware of the financial situation. When challenged I can't help but to be proud of the response and solutions they have come up with to fill the void from those empty training week ends.



That's what I was talking about! Instead of whining and bitching, put that energy into something constructive. Hell, you don't even need the CoCs permission for most of this stuff, if you conduct it as civies. Heck, winter indoc is just a weekend camping trip with the guys at the nearest campground! Go have some fun and maintain your skills and teach it to the newbies.


----------



## jak3_dude

Well, technically speaking, reservists are responsible for their own physical fitness anyway since we don't have enough time to really shape up during our weekly Trgs so that should be covered already anyway.

As for the other ideas, I'll pass them around to my CoC, see if we can't get something like that started up civi side. Sounds like it could be a lot of fun.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks Dean22 but if you read up a little you'll already see Recceguy sorted me out  

I love having CF members like Dapaterson on the forum, thanks for the insight.

Here's a question, not sure if it's been answered.
Is what's going on out west with the 2010 Olympics impacting reservists and the cutbacks we're facing??


----------



## Spanky

There are a lot of *rumours* as to the cause other than the Olympics.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> That's what I was talking about! Instead of whining and bitching, put that energy into something constructive. Hell, you don't even need the CoCs permission for most of this stuff, if you conduct it as civies. Heck, winter indoc is just a weekend camping trip with the guys at the nearest campground! Go have some fun and maintain your skills and teach it to the newbies.



That may maintain the skillset for those soldiers that are dedicated and will volunteer their time to do so. Maintaining the skillset is only part of the problem though. A lot of people rely on Class A as their source of income. If the PRes can not provide them the income they require to survive, they'll have to seek a job elsewhere... one which may not give them the time required to parade with the unit once the stand-down is over. Further on that, once they get a stable civilian job, it is a very real possibility that they wont be able to attend courses during the summer, whether as candidates or staff. Why would they leave their stable job, work over the summer, just to find out they have to go and find another part time job afterwards because Class A days have been reduced?


----------



## Snakedoc

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Now would be a good time for the Navy to recruit. Put a couple recruiters at every armoury...
> 
> "Do you guys like to get paid?"
> 
> :2c:



Just a note that naval reserve units are feeling the pinch too, though from what I've seen/heard it doesn't sound as bad as what's being described in this forum for the army reserves so far...just less courses like 404's etc. and the possibility of some reduced training.  However, the new year may bring a much different reality...


----------



## bang

Just want to add my two cents:

Jak3:  Don't expect you'll be able to add too much assistance in the system,  but pass those ideas to CS.  He's pretty good at knocking down any appearance of the "good idea fairy" and distinguishing them from good ideas at that.  Also tell your buddies not to lose too much heart.  You're in a good unit with a strong command team and a decent ops staff and you will get trained down the line.  With luck, you might even be lucky enough to skip the lame weekend BMQ and do a real summer camp deal with your buddies.  Worst come to worst, you'll be able to do a weekend BMQ the next year with a lot of assistance, tips, and good training from your two chefs.  They're good people.  

Snakedoc:  despite the cuts, you guys tend to have good bean counters.  I wouldn't be surprised if you had a pretty bad-ass orca exercise end of fiscal year.

Otherwise, this smells more bureaucratic spill-up than major issue and I don't see this bad-streak going any longer than the 15th of March.  I also would not be surprised if a good chunk of cash found itself during the spring break.  End of fiscal years are always finicky that way.  I personally won't be able to teach myself which will be arse, but such is life.  Eat cheap, cut out alcohol, invest in a bus pass, get a student loan at arms-reach, and carry on.  Making do should be nothing new.


----------



## jak3_dude

Yeah, hopefully, but we haven't had summer BMQs over here for 2 years now, only weekend ones during the school year, but *crosses fingers* special circumstances call for special action; it would be pretty awesome to finish spring exams and head off for a month come back and go off again to do SQ all in one summer like they (apparently) use to.


----------



## dapaterson

Bang said:
			
		

> Eat cheap, cut out alcohol, invest in a bus pass, get a student loan at arms-reach, and carry on.  Making do should be nothing new.



Damn - that's what went wrong when I was in school.  I cut out the bus pass and invested in alcohol.


----------



## PuckChaser

jak3_dude said:
			
		

> Yeah, hopefully, but we haven't had summer BMQs over here for 2 years now, only weekend ones during the school year



That died when the Comm Res joined the Army, I doubt its coming back. Long Live the Comm Res Battle School in Shilo!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Many young soldiers depend on the few hundred dollars a month they get from the reserves. I really hope they rescind this decision in January. 

I wonder if the reserves will bounce back after the loss of faith all this stuff will accomplish.


----------



## brihard

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Many young soldiers depend on the few hundred dollars a month they get from the reserves. I really hope they rescind this decision in January.
> 
> I wonder if the reserves will bounce back after the loss of faith all this stuff will accomplish.



Anything will bounce if dropped from high enough.  >

But yeah, our typical 'word of mouth' recruiting will probably be fairly significantly affected by this, and we certainly didn't need any *more* problems with retention.


----------



## rormson

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's what I was talking about! Instead of whining and bitching, put that energy into something constructive. Hell, you don't even need the CoCs permission for most of this stuff, if you conduct it as civies. Heck, winter indoc is just a weekend camping trip with the guys at the nearest campground! Go have some fun and maintain your skills and teach it to the newbies.



With all respect, I don't think anyone is whining. When your terms of employment are changed without notice it's a fair concern. When your lifestyle, family planning, and civ work commitments have been adjusted to make time for the army these types of decisions have a major impact. Civ outings are not equal to army training and winter camping is NOT a substitute for formal winter indoc. You can't get/use issue items without CofC permission and the reality is we need to use issued kit, comms, wpns, tpt to be proficient as a "force".


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thanks for proving my point. While others are trying to be proactive and brainstorm solutions, others just want to pout, and naysay. They might as well curl up and crawl under a rock. If you've nothing constructive to add..........


----------



## George Wallace

Rot said:
			
		

> I'm on the weekend BMQ course ..........



A weekend BMQ in Toronto?   

Interesting.  We had a Trades Course with one day left terminated,  a PLQ Crse with three weekends left terminated.  Yes.  Interesting.


----------



## Flap Jack

RGO said:
			
		

> With all respect, I don't think anyone is whining. When your terms of employment are changed without notice it's a fair concern. When your lifestyle, family planning, and civ work commitments have been adjusted to make time for the army these types of decisions have a major impact. Civ outings are not equal to army training and winter camping is NOT a substitute for formal winter indoc. You can't get/use issue items without CofC permission and the reality is we need to use issued kit, comms, wpns, tpt to be proficient as a "force".



But the whole point is trying to maintain unit cohesion. Although winter camping might not be a substitute for real training, at least it can give you a little taste of what would actually happen, just without as much equipment. And hey, its better than nothing! Just my  :2c:


----------



## George Wallace

Not picking sides here, but one has to remember that there are "Legalities" involved here.  What liability is being placed on the CF or DND when members partake in outside activities other than those authorized on their CF Expres or BFT forms?  What legal liability does DND or the CF have if any of these functions take place on DND property?  I have found in the past that the JAG is often the naysayer who shuts down many events.


----------



## kratz

If, something should go sour fast, there are also pensionable and medical release issues that need to be considered. The safest, friendliest "camping trip" could turn to disaster if a participant chooses to submit a CF98 for that unseen piece of black ice.


----------



## jak3_dude

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That died when the Comm Res joined the Army, I doubt its coming back. Long Live the Comm Res Battle School in Shilo!



I can hope, so long as I don't hold my breath.  

I like the weekend courses and all, but seriously during exam period it IS tight. But like I said, these are extreme circumstances, they just may have to or else we could be looking to close to, if not more than, 60 PATs come October if our incoming numbers stay consistent.


----------



## brihard

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A weekend BMQ in Toronto?
> 
> Interesting.  We had a Trades Course with one day left terminated,  a PLQ Crse with three weekends left terminated.  Yes.  Interesting.



Which trade course got canned? I know a bunch of dudes who got hit by the PLQ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

kratz said:
			
		

> If, something should go sour fast, there are also pensionable and medical release issues that need to be considered. The safest, friendliest "camping trip" could turn to disaster if a participant chooses to submit a CF98 for that unseen piece of black ice.



Which is why you just do it as a bunch of guys (girls) with the same interest. Not military, just going out on the weekend having fun. You just choose to do things like the military when you're out is all. It's all on your dime and your time. Leave the army out of it.


----------



## Flap Jack

recceguy said:
			
		

> Which is why you just do it as a bunch of guys (girls) with the same interest. Not military, just going out on the weekend having fun. You just choose to do things like the military when you're out is all. It's all on your dime and your time. Leave the army out of it.



I agree. I would definitely use sports as a good team building activity. And its fun! Who can say no to a good game of basketball/hockey/whatever?


----------



## Dissident

Naysayers can go pound sand.

Part of a leaders job is to remove obstacles to allow his subordinates to accomplish the mission easier. I despise the risk averse, career oriented leaders who seem to say "no" just to cover their arse.

Often that mentality permeates through the ranks and a lot of people get confined by the box which tend to lead to a stifling of creativity.


----------



## George Wallace

Brihard said:
			
		

> Which trade course got canned? I know a bunch of dudes who got hit by the PLQ...



There are QL5A crses being terminated.  That is what happened to us.  There are a whole list of Dvr Wheel Crses being terminated, which for most Trades are a bonus, but for Svc Bns it is a Trade.  Drivers are required to move Troops and Equipment.

As far as I know IBTS is still on.  Everyone does IBTS when joining a BG to deploy, sometimes several times.  If we don't do IBTS, we will when we join a BG.  If we don't do Trades trg, we have no one qualified to go to a BG, so their doing IBTS is a complete waste of resources.


----------



## Larkvall

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A weekend BMQ in Toronto?
> 
> Interesting.  We had a Trades Course with one day left terminated,  a PLQ Crse with three weekends left terminated.  Yes.  Interesting.



Yes there are still 3 BMQ courses running in the Toronto area along with a SQ and Comms course. All the courses that had not started were cancelled though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Yes there are still 3 BMQ courses running in the Toronto area along with a SQ and Comms course. All the courses that had not started were cancelled though.



Ahhhh. The good old Centre of the Universe. Do as I say, not as I do. The Toronto mafia strikes again :


----------



## Larkvall

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ahhhh. The good old Centre of the Universe. Do as I say, not as I do. The Toronto mafia strikes again :



Huh? What do you mean by that? Who in Toronto told you to do anything?


----------



## dregeneau

There seems to be a lot of discussion about this topic on this forum, as well among the ranks from what I have seen. I was curious this morning listening to the news, whether this issue has, or will be published in the news media in the form of a press release by Army, LFCA, or whatever group before it comes to the attention journalists from other sources. So without having researched it myself, I did a quick 'google' search for news articles and I found these:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/11/25/11932166.html


> Amid the Afghanistan war, and planning for the Vancouver Olympics and two international economic summits, the Canadian army is quietly cutting staff, training and recruitment in reserve units across the country.
> 
> Over the past few months, Southwestern Ontario’s 31 Canadian Brigade Group has cut its budget by about 16%, or $2.5 million on its $18.2-million budget.
> 
> Group-training exercises, exchanges with overseas units, and travel budgets have been cut and the brigade has dropped recruitment levels to about 260 from a high several years ago of 400, said Col. John Celestino, brigade commander.
> 
> The brigade has had to cut 25 full-time jobs, ranging from a lieutenant colonel to corporals.
> 
> “It hurts. There’s no doubt about it,” Celestino said. “This is nationwide . . . and the cuts are substantial.”
> 
> Nationally, the army is cutting 300 full-time reserve jobs from the force’s 4,750, moving about $15 million a year from personnel to other areas, Canadian Forces spokesperson Lt. Col. Jay Janzen said in a telephone interview from Ottawa.



I personally don't know what to think about the spin the writer of this article was trying to put on by saying "moving about $15 million a year from personnel to other areas."

http://www.lotwenterprise.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2207147



> Recruitment, jobs and training at Kenora's 116th Independent Field Battery continues despite a 10 per cent budget cut to 38 Brigade Group, the Winnipeg-based administrative headquarters for the local artillery and other army reserve units.
> 
> Colonel Robert Poirier, commanding officer of 38 Brigade Group, said the reallocation of approximately $1.4 million from the brigade's $14 million annual operating budget is being addressed through reductions in training, travel and administrative costs at the unit and headquarters level.
> 
> "It's being dealt with by taking from the units a bit of training and administration," he said. "It's controllable. I don't believe anybody's suffering. No 'pink slips' have been issued to full time people and major exercises are untouched."



Myself, I can state that I will be suffering, as I rely on this job as a main source of income to support my university studies. With the offer of a course being taken away, that is a significant loss of income which I came to rely on last year. If I end up having to resort to finding a secondary employment it could be a strain on myself as well. I don't doubt my capabilities of finding work, more of a case that I found something I like and I don't want to stress myself out with work I do not care for.

I agree with the ideas that we can maintain and grow our knowledge through extra-curricular activities. However, that doesn't solve the issue of loss of employment for students like myself.


----------



## blacktriangle

Can reservists like dredre qualify for a short period of EI?

Anyone?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Can reservists like dredre qualify for a short period of EI?
> 
> Anyone?



Depends if he/she has the required hours to claim EI.


----------



## VIChris

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Can reservists like dredre qualify for a short period of EI?
> 
> Anyone?



I looked into EI a week or so back after the temporary loss of my main job, and was told there is at least a 6 week wait right now, and it's all for a payment of only 55% of what I was making before. For many people, EI isn't a viable short term option.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Just Remember, if you were at the Town Hall at JFA a few weeks back according to the area Commander and RSM " ITS A GREAT DAY TO BE A SOLDIER!!!!"

Sure...... maybe in the Regs..... its a little tight in the Reserves right now....   

on the plus side, now is the time to start cashing in on all those free coffees people want to buy us... since most of the Class A's cant afford them anymore....

In all Seriousness though... we will get past this... its going to suck something hard for the next little bit... but stick it out...  Try to keep Morale up... we're feeling it in Cl B too... our unit is cutting several jobs by end fiscal year or earlier... (though Apparently that is also Forces wide.. and Civie side too...)

Dpatterson, thanks for the excellent post. it clarified a few things I was still a little fuzzy on after the Area Comd's town hall...   

Just remember, as long as you still feel some pride in the uniform, keep showing up... once that goes, then its time to move on.... I'm still proud to serve. just not thrilled with the fact we have no cash...


----------



## jak3_dude

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Huh? What do you mean by that? Who in Toronto told you to do anything?



I think he's referring to the fact that historically Toronto sorta likes everyone to bend to it's will I guess you could say, like when they had the forces come down and shovel them out after the snow storm and other stuff like that


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Huh? What do you mean by that? Who in Toronto told you to do anything?



All direction in LFCA initiates from Dennison. In Toronto. Look it up. 



			
				jak3_dude said:
			
		

> I think he's referring to the fact that historically Toronto sorta likes everyone to bend to it's will I guess you could say, like when they had the forces come down and shovel them out after the snow storm and other stuff like that



Not even close.

If you guys weren't so far down the food chain, you'd probably understand.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Geez even me in the Army of the East ( ;D ) understood what was meant about the Toronto Mafia......


----------



## tango22a

We can't Possibly have the Bloated LFCA, CBG HQ and the PREMIER PRes Unit (singular, or so they would have you believe) in Canada suffer from underfunding can we now?? (a bit of sarcasm!) Whenever the S**T hits the fan it always seems to be mitigated for any units based in Moronto. Seems odd to me......Doesn't it seem odd to you??
 Maybe they are expecting another Snow Emergency that we haven't heard about yet.

Probably a bit of sour grapes, but it always seems that when other CBGs and Areas don't have a pot to pee in OR a window to throw it out of the boys in Hogtown never seem to share the pain. Guess what they say about the "OLD BOYS' " net is proven to be true in this case....AGAIN!!!


SLAGGERS FEEL FREE TO ENLIGHTEN ME.


tango22a

Edited for emphasis and spelling.


----------



## jak3_dude

you know, if we're paid to shovel them out, bring on the snow storm I say


----------



## brihard

jak3_dude said:
			
		

> you know, if we're paid to shovel them out, bring on the snow storm I say



Can't. We've already had to cancel some Class Bs and most of the class As.  ;D

In a hideous act of irony, it'll snow, and the LFCA folks won't be able to get to the HQ in order to authorize the budget to have us come down and dig 'em out. I can see it now. Fortunately, the new fiscal year roughly corresponds with the natural disappearance of the snow.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Honestly.

Why are BMQ & PLQ candidates from my regiment punted off their respective courses but courses running out of Toronto still going?


----------



## tango22a

Flawed Design:

Your problem is that the "Moronto Mafia" has literally tons more influence in both LFCA and Ottawa than us poor sods out in the boonies!!


tango22a


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Well here is list of all courses cancelled in LFCA and also includes not only the Reserve Bridages but also 2 CMBG.



> BMQ - LONDON		London		09-Jan-10	02-May-10
> BMQ - WINDSOR		Windsor		09-Jan-10	02-May-10
> P RES DP3 ARMD  MOD 1 & 2London		06-Feb-10	28-Mar-10
> ARTY MORTARMAN		Brantford		27-Feb-10	28-Mar-10
> DEMOLITIONS BASIC	ATC Meaford		08-Mar-10	09-Mar-10
> DVR - HLVW - LONDON	London		20-Feb-10	28-Mar-10
> ATCIS OP INTERMEDIATE - Guelph		Guelph		13-Feb-10	15-Apr-10
> P RES DP2 INF PL SUP WPNS- TORONTO	TORONTO		22-Jan-10	25-Apr-10
> ATCIS OP BASIC - SERIAL 2 TORONTO MPA	TORONTO		05-Feb-10	11-Apr-10
> COMMON ARMY PHASE - MODULE 1		TORONTO		08-Jan-10	09-May-10
> WINTER WARFARE - BASIC - TORONTO MPA	TORONTO		09-Jan-10	28-Feb-10
> WINTER WARFARE - BASIC - TORONTO MPA	TORONTO		09-Jan-10	28-Feb-10
> P RES DP3 ARMD TORONTO DENISON		TORONTO		12-Feb-10	11-Apr-10
> LSVW/MLVW/MILCOT CORNWALL		CORNWALL		1/Jan/10	30/Mar/10
> AIRBRAKE OTTAWA		OTTAWA		9/Jan/10	17/Jan/10
> HLVW OTTAWA			30/Jan/10	28/Mar/10
> DP 2 ARTY RECCE TECH- SSM		SSM		9/Jan/10	28/Feb/10
> LOSV W TIMMINS		TIMMNS		1/Feb/10	30 Feb 10
> LSVW/MLVW/MILCOT OSHAWA	OSHAWA		1/Jan/10	30/Mar/10
> Basic Winter Warfare (33 CER)		5/Jan/10	7/Feb/10
> AHSVS Cgo/PLS		3525 - Petawawa		04-Jan-10	08-Jan-10
> AHSVS Cgo/PLS		3525 - Petawawa		11-Jan-10	15-Jan-10
> AHSVS Cgo/PLS		3525 - Petawawa		25-Jan-10	29-Jan-10
> AHSVS Cgo/PLS		3525 - Petawawa		01-Feb-10	05-Feb-10
> AHSVS Cgo/PLS		3525 - Petawawa		15-Feb-10	19-Feb-10
> AHSVS Cgo/PLS		3525 - Petawawa		22-Feb-10	26-Feb-10
> AHSVS T/Tlr		3525 - Petawawa		18-Jan-10	22-Jan-10
> AHSVS T/Tlr		3525 - Petawawa		08-Feb-10	12-Feb-10
> Air Brake Course	3525 - Petawawa		18-Jan-10	22-Jan-10
> Air Brake Course	3525 - Petawawa		08-Feb-10	12-Feb-10
> Winter Warfare Basic (BORDEN)	DP2	5035 - Borden		09-Jan-10	14-Feb-10
> Winter Warfare Basic (TORONTO)	DP2	5068 - Toronto		09-Jan-10	14-Feb-10
> Winter Warfare Basic (HAMILTON)	DP2	5074 - Hamilton		21-Jan-10	14-Feb-10


----------



## robbiewho?

This doesn't make sense, I was just at the recruiting office last week and they are pushing to open an armoured recce reserve unit in Halifax and have posted the jobs and are passing out flyers.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

robbiewho? said:
			
		

> This doesn't make sense, I was just at the recruiting office last week and they are pushing to open an armoured recce reserve unit in Halifax and have posted the jobs and are passing out flyers.



LFAA does not have the same shortfall as LFCA right now....


----------



## tango22a

robbiewho:

Another fine example of P.I. (Political Influence} carried ALMOST to the level  of  the P.I. wielded by the Moronto Mafia.


tango22a


----------



## robbiewho?

tango22a said:
			
		

> robbiewho:
> 
> Another fine example of P.I. (Political Influence} carried ALMOST to the level  of  the P.I. wielded by the Moronto Mafia.
> 
> 
> tango22a



Thats pretty good though, at least they are acknowledging that the Maritimes are part of Canada lol


----------



## brihard

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Well here is list of all courses cancelled in LFCA and also includes not only the Reserve Bridages but also 2 CMBG.



That list is not comprehensive. I know that there is at a minimum an additional PLQ mods 1-5 run in Ottawa by 33 CBG that was cancelled, and I'm pretty sure the 33 CBG BMQ got cancelled too. George Wallace also mentioned a Dvr Whl in Ottawa, which I'm assuming is distinct from the HLVW.

Given that LFCA has TF 1-10 coming up, I'm frankly astonished that Pet is cancelling AHSVS courses. They must be expecting a bunch of MSE ops to deploy who got AHSVS for 3-08...


EDIT TO ADD: Oops, I'm dumb. Those are courses that had been forecast that are cancelled. It does not include courses that were already running that were canned.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

That was the latest info on the Army National Calendar as of last Friday...... these are the ones marked 0 FUNDED. There are also a bunch with WITHDRAWN which I did not list as _I_ didn't think they are linked to the budget crunch.....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Brihard said:
			
		

> EDIT TO ADD: Oops, I'm dumb. Those are courses that had been forecast that are cancelled. It does not include courses that were already running that were canned.



No worries, happens to all of us........

 :cheers:


----------



## DirtyDog

I was of the understanding the  AHSVS courses were to get a lot of people qualified for 1-10.  As in a lot of the transport types in our Bn who very few of are qualified.


----------



## rormson

tango22a said:
			
		

> Flawed Design:
> 
> Your problem is that the "Moronto Mafia" has literally tons more influence in both LFCA and Ottawa than us poor sods out in the boonies!!
> 
> 
> tango22a



Exactly - closer to the rabid media hub also and less wanting to cause a stir. You hit the centre of mass with this comment! Good 1.


----------



## Robbie

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Well here is list of all courses cancelled in LFCA and also includes not only the Reserve Bridages but also 2 CMBG.



Here is a couple more to add as I look at your list. This is for 31 CBG. Don't know the all the dates off hand.

MILCOTS Silverado - Guelph - Dec 2009
Arty CP Tech Crse - Brantford
BMOQ - St. Thomas


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ahhhh. The good old Centre of the Universe. Do as I say, not as I do. The Toronto mafia strikes again :





			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Why are BMQ & PLQ candidates from my regiment punted off their respective courses but courses running out of Toronto still going?


What CBG are you in?  There seems to be a whole lot in the "centre of the universe buggered us again" crowd, but where is the proof to back this?

It looks like 32 CBG dicided to keep going on its already started career courses.  Other brigades (apparently 31 & 33 CBG) have axed courses that are already running to save money.  But that information is not even a complete snapshot of the situation.  As has already come out in this thread, different brigades are also funding different amounts of training days for the units (some appear to be reducing the number of evenings per month, some may be going into stand-downs, etc).

Every level of the CoC is making decisions about what to cut.  Looking at what one other unit has, and then blaming those villains in LFCA is just whinny when done without any consideration for the different trade-offs that each CBG HQ decided to make, and then again with respect to the decisions made by each unit's CO.


----------



## tango22a

I have only one question: Where in h*ll are the far thinking planners that should have foreseen that we were going to be UNDERFUNDED again? You would think after all these years that it is a KNOWN problem. Given adequate funding some cuts would still have to be made, but not to this extent.

Gutting the PRes budget towards the end of the fiscal year is a foregone conclusion....But half a day a month training is ridiculous, useless and demeaning to the people who have sacrificed their time to the PRes for countless years.

You CAN train on your own, but what happens if you get hurt somehow or other and are unable to work at your civvy job? You get left to face financial ruin with the kind words of "the training was NOT sponsored by the CF so you're on your own hook". And all you out there KNOW that this is the line that WOULD be taken.

Sometimes I wish I was back in, but I can honestly tell you that I would certainly be tired of being "screwed, stewed and tattooed" like this every d**n year. All I can say is you are very lucky to have the kind of proud citizen-soldiers that are willing to put up with this horse- puckey year after year after year...


tango22a

You cannot continue to rob Peter to pay Paul because eventually Peter is going to say "F**k this noise, I'm outta here!!" And I really can't blame him. This may be the straw that finally  breaks the camel's (PRes) back.


Edited for content and clarity.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> Ahhhh. The good old Centre of the Universe. Do as I say, not as I do. The Toronto mafia strikes again





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> What CBG are you in?  There seems to be a whole lot in the "centre of the universe buggered us again" crowd, but where is the proof to back this?
> 
> It looks like 32 CBG dicided to keep going on its already started career courses.  Other brigades (apparently 31 & 33 CBG) have axed courses that are already running to save money.  But that information is not even a complete snapshot of the situation.  As has already come out in this thread, different brigades are also funding different amounts of training days for the units (some appear to be reducing the number of evenings per month, some may be going into stand-downs, etc).
> 
> Every level of the CoC is making decisions about what to cut.  Looking at what one other unit has, and then blaming those villains in LFCA is just whinny when done without any consideration for the different trade-offs that each CBG HQ decided to make, and then again with respect to the decisions made by each unit's CO.



People get too wrapped up in tongue in cheek comments around here. The 'Toronto Mafia' has been the unofficial, never proven, whipping boy in LFCA for years. When people don't have enough information to make informed decisions, the scarecrow is dragged out to accept the blame. Get over it and get on with it. Anyone that takes that comment seriously needs their head examined.


----------



## Larkvall

tango22a said:
			
		

> I have only one question: Where in h*ll are the far thinking planners that should have foreseen that we were going to be UNDERFUNDED again? You would think after all these years that it is a KNOWN problem. Given adequate funding some cuts would still have to be made, but not to this extent.



Well according to this threadhttp://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/86059.0 DND lost 300 million last year due to foot dragging.

It seems if the powers are too cautious spending the money then there is danger off losing the money and if they are too aggressive spending the money then there is a danger of a funding shortfall.


----------



## dapaterson

DND's budget was never reduced by $300M in unexpended funds.  DND was allocated $300M it was unable to legally spend or carry forward, so those funds, at the end of the fiscal year, reverted to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and served to reduce the overall federal debt.  (This FY, any similar lapse would reduce the deficit).

Today, people have expanded their appetites and wanted more money than was available and refused to believe that belt-tightening (or at least no further belt loosening) was in order - and despite clear messages that funds would be tight throughout the department continued with grandiose plans - and is now doing things that, on reflection, make one ask "Why were we going the other way in the first place?"

The corrections are severe.  Senior leaders should be held accountable for not doing their jobs.

But there is no grand conspiracy by the Government of Canada, DND or the Army.  There are two fine quotes that summarize the current situation:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

and

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."


----------



## tango22a

Dapaterson:

Now this begs the question: Will the responsible people take responsibility for their actions?? In today's world of massive CYA (translation anybody??) I sincerely doubt it!

Unfortunately there isn't a place in the CoC or a desk in NDHQ with a sign: "The Buck Stops Here", but there sure is one over in the Treasury and the buck sure does stop there! Massive underfunding sucks!!

Sorry, but for this massive SNAFU somebody needs to be hung out to dry even if only to "encourager les autres".


tango22a


Editted for content and clarity.


----------



## Larkvall

dapaterson said:
			
		

> DND's budget was never reduced by $300M in unexpended funds.  DND was allocated $300M it was unable to legally spend or carry forward, so those funds, at the end of the fiscal year, reverted to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and served to reduce the overall federal debt.  (This FY, any similar lapse would reduce the deficit).



Sorry for the confusion. I was just trying to demonstrate how hard it must be to do this type of budgeting and show what happens when planners are too conservative. I didn't mean to infer that DND lost 300 million from this current fiscal year.


----------



## tango22a

MCG and Dapaterson and others:

Have been informed that I am right out of 'er and as I am getting tired of wading through the muck.....I'm outta this thread.


Cheers,


tango22a

P.S.: You guys keep on toeing the corporate line and soon all will soon be "sweetness and light".


----------



## Michael OLeary

tango22a said:
			
		

> I have only one question: Where in h*ll are the far thinking planners that should have foreseen that we were going to be UNDERFUNDED again? You would think after all these years that it is a KNOWN problem. Given adequate funding some cuts would still have to be made, but not to this extent.



Some of the big budget projects that need to be paid for were put in place by those very "far thinking planners" who were told years ago that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan would draw down in 2009.

But the Government changed its mind (link):



> The Conservative motion, which was revised after consultation with the Liberals, called for the mission to be renewed beyond 2009 but with a focus on reconstruction and training of Afghan troops and a firm pullout date that calls for Canadian troops to leave Afghanistan by December 2011.



There should have been plenty of funds of those projects this year - unfortunately, in all the "happy happy joy joy" over continuing the fight, the big picture of conflicting funding priorities (as a result of forward planning based on the decisions that had already been made) got missed by everyone.


----------



## dapaterson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> There should have been plenty of funds of those projects this year - unfortunately, in all the "happy happy joy joy" over continuing the fight, the big picture of conflicting funding priorities (as a result of forward planning based on the decisions that had already been made) got missed by everyone.



Not missed so much as obstinately ignored.  "We're the Army.  We're in Afghanistan.  We get everything we want."  Clear indications were provided, yet at the Strategic level (if there is such a thing) the Army willfully deluded itself into thinking that the Department's known resource challenges would not impact the Army.

Prudent planning went out the window.  And now, the deluge...


----------



## kratz

[quote author=dapaterson]
Not missed so much as obstinately ignored.  *"We're the Army.  We're in Afghanistan.  We get everything we want."*   Clear indications were provided, yet at the Strategic level (if there is such a thing) the Army willfully deluded itself into thinking that the Department's known resource challenges would not impact the Army.

Prudent planning went out the window.  And now, the deluge... [/quote]

Thank you.


----------



## sandyson

This situation has been around since I was a trooper in a Sherman hatch.  I don't think DND has ever been able to budget.  Many years they closed down Militia units in January, and in others they begged  for soldiers to train every weekend in late Feb and Mar to burn up a surplus.  The cost in lost soldiers, recruiting replacements, and training them far exceeded the so called savings.
I am convinced that the only way to stop Class A man days from being used as a slush fund, is to use September contracts.  The reservist signs to train for (say) 80% of the training calendar, and the Army guarantees the pay.  If DND cannot budget properly after that: too bad--pay up anyway. 
Soldiers should not pay the price for bad DND budgeting, only their own.


----------



## kratz

A shift in concept is needed. daptaperson has touched on the idea. Nobody has asked why the ARAF, or NavRes is not responding with the a similar Knee jerk reaction?


----------



## BlueJingo

Kevin_M said:
			
		

> My unit hasn't had many problems this year. We even are working class A days all through the Xmas break.
> 
> I guess our members who run our budget are doing a stand up job.



I see you are from out "west"...since when does anybody give a crap about Manitoba....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Jingo said:
			
		

> I see you are from out "west"...since when does anybody give a crap about Manitoba....



No need of that......... and yes I noticed your smiley..........


MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Kevin_M said:
			
		

> My unit hasn't had many problems this year. We even are working class A days all through the Xmas break.
> 
> I guess our members who run our budget are doing a stand up job.



Wait for it, its not your unit that will cut the days but your higher HQ that will.....


----------



## unclefrank1961

Why don't the Class B people that are getting their walking papers all just do a CT?  Ottawa Citizen says that any budget cuts to CF will not effect Reg F.


----------



## BlueJingo

And Yes I was kidding (thanks NFLD Sapper)

Budget seems to be getting cut everywhere... some ppl at the Recruiting Centre (the staff not the applicants) are worried about their Class B's.... 

But they are told to wait out for further info... needles and pins.


----------



## dapaterson

Iggle Piggle said:
			
		

> Why don't the Class B people that are getting their walking papers all just do a CT?  Ottawa Citizen says that any budget cuts to CF will not effect Reg F.



The majority of the Army Reserve is combat arms.  Combat arms trades are all closed right now in the Reg F...


----------



## unclefrank1961

No. Combat arms are closed to civilian applicants. No trades are closed to CT's.  Some trades (Artillery for one) are even offering Incntives for qualified PRes pers to make the switch.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Iggle Piggle said:
			
		

> Why don't the Class B people that are getting their walking papers all just do a CT?  Ottawa Citizen says that any budget cuts to CF will not effect Reg F.



There is a myriad of reasons why they don't CT. It's been discussed a number of times on the board. A search should give you plenty of reading, without sidetracking this thread and starting the Cl B\CT theme all over again here.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## BlueJingo

recceguy said:
			
		

> There is a myriad of reasons why they don't CT. It's been discussed a number of times on the board.



I guess some reservists (incld myself) like the sheer thrill of being given 30 days notice....or off/on employment.... I wonder if LFCA can buy a LottoMax ticket.
20 million could pay a dozen PRes units for a year  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

Iggle Piggle said:
			
		

> No. Combat arms are closed to civilian applicants. No trades are closed to CT's.  Some trades (Artillery for one) are even offering Incntives for qualified PRes pers to make the switch.


We had a few CTs from Res Infantry to  Reg nfantry in my unit that got placed on hold.

The problems with class B contracts cut and class A work uncertitnay HAS caused an exodus of reservists to CT to the regular force.  Problem now is the reserves are loosing all their good guys.

reserves fell on their sword over this budget stuff and I'm not sure if they will be able to pick themselves up again anytime soon.



			
				Kevin_M said:
			
		

> Oh I wouldn't doubt it. I hope not though since this is my only job. 20-25 class A days a month is the greatest job I've ever had.
> 
> But hey, budget cuts or no budget cuts we got the new crimpers finally. Double crimp. Chimo.   : Now if only we got to use them more then once a year.



If you're working that much you should be placed on a class B contract.  You're missing out on a lot of benifits.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Right Flawed. Kevin if you are working that much then you should be on Class B service. 

From the CMP - Adminstrative Policy



> Cl "A" Reserve Service as defined in QR&O 9.06 shall be used for *short periods of service to a maximum of 12 consecutive days*. Reserve Force members shall not be placed on consecutive periods of Cl "A" Reserve Service in order to avoid the requirement to place the reservist on a period of Cl "B" Reserve Service. For example, a Reserve Force member serving on consecutive five-day periods of Cl "A" Reserve Service with a one or two day break between periods over extended periods.


----------



## Dean22

Ugh, the reserves stand down upsets me so much especially since I just got into the reserves. I'd transfer to the Regulars but I don't want to be a jack *** to the unit that allowed me in and it would probably be an administrative nightmare.


----------



## Jarnhamar

You're not being disloyal.  You have to look out for YOU.
If you want a career in the military go reg force.
I've helped over a half dozen members of my _platoon_ fill out paperwork and memos to CT to the regular force.  When someone comes to me and asks about long term employment in the reserves I tell them there isn't any and to join the regular force, go school full time OR get a civilian job. Our CO tells people the same thing.

The job of the reserves is to use what they have, not try and co hearse people into staying.

The CF decided to sweep the legs out from under the reserves so they will just simply have to accept the repercussions. 

Although I'd probably have a few things to say to your unit for allowing you in in the first place


----------



## BlueJingo

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Ugh, the reserves stand down upsets me so much especially since I just got into the reserves. I'd transfer to the Regulars but I don't want to be a jack *** to the unit that allowed me in and it would probably be an administrative nightmare.



I agree with Flawed Design... look out for you... CTs have been easier now more than ever.... If you need the money/a full time job go regs


----------



## Brasidas

Just had a course I was told I was teaching cancelled on me. Three weeks notice isn't the worst I've had, but I'd been optimistic that it wouldn't be so bad out west. Meh.

Makes planning my work schedule easier. Goodbye class A days, hello flexibility.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jingo said:
			
		

> I agree with Flawed Design... look out for you... CTs have been easier now more than ever.... If you need the money/a full time job go regs



While that works for some (my CT took 3 months start to finish), I have a friend waiting for a transfer into a red trade as a Cpl and has been waiting over 6 months, and now its block leave. She's lucky she can get some Cl A here and there, and that EI tops up the rest, otherwise she'd be out in the streets waiting for Ottawa to finish her transfer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

NO ONE ever promised your Reserve job would be a fulltime one. NO ONE ever promised the Reserve would pay you full time. Sorry if you thought that way, and now you don't have a job. There is only ONE person to thank for your predicament. 

Sorry, but it's time to move on.


----------



## Dean22

recceguy said:
			
		

> NO ONE ever promised your Reserve job would be a fulltime one. NO ONE ever promised the Reserve would pay you full time. Sorry if you thought that way, and now you don't have a job. There is only ONE person to thank for your predicament.
> 
> Sorry, but it's time to move on.



Who are you talking to?

I don't see your post pertaining to anyone in this thread. No one is complaining about job time, full time or anything else other than lack of training until late next year.

You just started yelling at the corner in the room and now everyone is staring at you.


----------



## Scott

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Who are you talking to?
> 
> I don't see your post pertaining to anyone in this thread. No one is complaining about job time, full time or anything else other than lack of training until late next year.
> 
> You just started yelling at the corner in the room and now everyone is staring at you.



You're the one people are staring at after that. Now wind your neck in or go into the system, again.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> While that works for some (my CT took 3 months start to finish), I have a friend waiting for a transfer into a red trade as a Cpl and has been waiting over 6 months, and now its block leave. She's lucky she can get some Cl A here and there, and that EI tops up the rest, otherwise she'd be out in the streets waiting for Ottawa to finish her transfer.



Read the last sentence of the above. I got the same gyst that recceguy did. If that is not what the OP meant they'll come back and clarify. I am sure they don't need you crusading for them. Now if you're done...

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Who are you talking to?
> 
> I don't see your post pertaining to anyone in this thread. No one is complaining about job time, full time or anything else other than lack of training until late next year.
> 
> You just started yelling at the corner in the room and now everyone is staring at you.



I could try explain it to you, but given your history here, it'd be a waste of time. :boring:


----------



## PuckChaser

Scott said:
			
		

> Read the last sentence of the above. I got the same gyst that recceguy did. If that is not what the OP meant they'll come back and clarify. I am sure they don't need you crusading for them. Now if you're done...
> 
> Scott
> Army.ca Staff



Maybe you'd care to explain in PM, since I have no idea what my post and Dean22's had in common.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sadly one of the biggest sales pitches in the reserves is aimed at full time students. We offer 4 Thursday nights a month, sometimes 1 to 4 Tuesday nights a month if your regiment does admin nights.  
Weekends and other odd class A taskings soliders(students) can pick up here and there.  In exchange the same student-soldiers go away during the summer and contribute back to the CF, say by instructing on various courses.

The money reservists get isn't a whole hell of a lot but for a struggling student it can mean the difference between a car payment, rent payment or food for the month.

It's a give and take.  
Reservists have a certain expectation BUT it's not set in stone. Still doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

I'm reminded of a comment I heard from a guy at my work regarding the whole class B termination thing when people used the argument "Well in the contract you signed it clearly says you may be given 30 days notice at any time".

If you send your child away to summer camp and they get killed having someone point out that you signed a piece of paper stating 'in the case of a child's death, the camp or staff would not be held responsible' won't really make you sleep better at night.


----------



## brihard

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Sadly one of the biggest sales pitches in the reserves is aimed at full time students. We offer 4 Thursday nights a month, sometimes 1 to 4 Tuesday nights a month if your regiment does admin nights.
> Weekends and other odd class A taskings soliders(students) can pick up here and there.  In exchange the same student-soldiers go away during the summer and contribute back to the CF, say by instructing on various courses.
> 
> The money reservists get isn't a whole hell of a lot but for a struggling student it can mean the difference between a car payment, rent payment or food for the month.
> 
> It's a give and take.
> Reservists have a certain expectation BUT it's not set in stone. Still doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
> 
> I'm reminded of a comment I heard from a guy at my work regarding the whole class B termination thing when people used the argument "Well in the contract you signed it clearly says you may be given 30 days notice at any time".
> 
> If you send your child away to summer camp and they get killed having someone point out that you signed a piece of paper stating 'in the case of a child's death, the camp or staff would not be held responsible' won't really make you sleep better at night.



Yup. That's by far our biggest pitch- it's what got me and a lot of others in; "It'll fit perfectly with full time studies, and half of us are students anyway; we know and understand the balance that comes with going to school."

No, we have no entitlement to a given amount of work, but it's consistently conveyed in recruiting that there's a certain steady amount of work that we will pretty much always get, and this is almost always borne out in reality. Lack of entitlement notwithstanding, having our work cut like this IS a huge kick in the nuts, it IS a real source of trouble for those of us who for five or six years HAVE been able to depend on such work to pay the bills, and it WILL hurt retention and recruiting. The law of unintended consequences is gonna hit us hard on this.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> No, we have no entitlement to a given amount of work, but it's consistently conveyed in recruiting that there's a certain steady amount of work that we will pretty much always get, and this is almost always borne out in reality.



To add to that, if you were to apply to any civilian part time job that advertised a certain amount of hours a week or something to that effect, and they fell short, how could you blame people for leaving that job and finding another? They need to pay their bills somehow. Its unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Im hearing more and more people looking for civilian employment now, and particularly for the summer months.


----------



## lawandorder

The money WAS there for 37 1/2 training days a year.  Since the scale back or what have you, those at the top asked to cut 3 days, to make it 34 1/2 training days a year per class A soldier.  So where did the money go for these reserve units that stood down early, standing back up late, and are on one training night a month?  It seems money was mismanaged and is anything going to be done about that?  

My unit is fortunate enough to have everything running as normal with the exception of probably a PD event being canceled IO to cover the costs that need to be saved/cut.

I also agree with many of the others, reserves really shouldn't bank on anything other than the 37 1/2 training days a year (34 1/2 for now).  That in conjunction with doing your ILP should help students that need to pay for school out.  If you want a completely free ride for school, get your marks up apply to RMC and commit for a few years service once your degree is in hand.
But when money isn't used properly and each reservists doesn't get there 37 1/2 days  year, then something needs to be done, and someone needs to be held accountable.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Army introduces cost-saving measures






A member of 3RCR mans the turret-mounted machine gun of a G-Wagon prior to departing on an early morning patrol during Exercise Maple Guardian 2008, CFB Wainwright.

Monday, December 21, 2009
Ottawa, ON - The Department of National Defence is adjusting budgets to key priorities, and as a result, the Army will shift spending in some areas in order to ensure sufficient funding for operational training and new equipment.  The Canadian Forces are experiencing a high operational tempo both internationally and domestically, and competing priorities have resulted in funding pressures this fiscal year.  Funding is being adjusted both on a departmental level and within the Army in order to ensure that key obligations are met.

In announcing these measures, the Chief of the Land Staff, LGen Andrew Leslie, said the Army’s “absolute priority” is to prepare soldiers for the combat mission in Afghanistan and other deployed and domestic missions, as well as to ensure that equipment recapitalization projects remain on track. The Commander said the Army must focus on what it has to do, not what it might wish to do.

“We have achieved life-saving and battle-winning standards in training - other spending cannot be allowed to erode those standards,” LGen Leslie said.






The Chief of the Land Staff, LGen Andrew Leslie.

 The Commander noted that the Army has obtained a substantial increase in funding in recent years, including recent initiatives to expand and recapitalize the land force.  Canadians have demonstrated an overwhelming degree of moral support for their troops and supported the Government in the assignment of additional financial resources.  This summer, the Government announced a commitment to acquire new and refurbished armoured vehicles that will ensure that soldiers have the tools and protection they need.

The Army’s annual budget is now $1.6 billion. Approximately $80 million is being moved to higher CF priorities this fiscal year. Funding adjustments are being spread across the Army to ensure that key priorities are met.  In order to achieve this, the Army will:

•reduce planned activities and training for soldiers not immediately preparing for operations, including non-urgent exercises and adventure training;
•delay non-urgent maintenance and repair of infrastructure and equipment;
•delay procurement of non-essential items including some commercial vehicles;
•reduce administrative travel and conferences;
•reduce information technology expenditures on items such as computers and cell phones; and
•reduce the number of full-time Reservists.
The CLS has cancelled his own overseas travel until the start of the next fiscal year in April 2010. Business-class travel has been cancelled for all ranks, including the CLS, and will only be authorized under special circumstances such as for wounded or injured soldiers who may require extra room on flights.

Much of the attention surrounding this issue has focused on the proposed reductions to Class B positions.  The number of full-time Class B Reservists has increased significantly in the past several years to near historic highs.  The number of Class B Reservists working with the Army in November 2008 was approximately 3,430.  In November 2009 this number increased to about 4,750.  The Army will reduce this number by about 300 in the short term.  Full time Reservists continue to provide an invaluable contribution to the day-to-day running of the Army, but the rapid growth of full time positions has come with a cost.  This added expense, combined with a high operational tempo and the Army’s requirement to support higher DND priorities, creates a situation where Army expenditures are in danger of exceeding the overall budget.  This situation is being addressed by the Army leadership through variety of measures.  Because personnel costs represent a significant portion of the Army’s budget, and due to the recent and unprecedented growth in Class B contracts, some trimming in this area is unavoidable.

The Army could face further reductions in the numbers of Class B Reservists in the next fiscal year, although no decision has yet been made.  The money that is being saved through these reductions will go towards training for those about to go on deployment and to the equipment and vehicles needed to provide those soldiers with the mobility and protection they need.

The Commander said the Reserves are an integral part of the Army team deploying shoulder-to-shoulder with Regular soldiers and carrying a sizeable burden of Canada’s domestic and deployed operations.  Nevertheless, sound financial management involves difficult decisions and unfortunately, one of the areas affected are the Reserves. 

“We understand that this these reductions will mean that certain things will not get done and there is risk in such an approach,” LGen Leslie said, but again emphasized that the Army must focus on its top priorities in order to be prepared for whatever tasks and missions lie ahead. In order to sustain the Army’s level of excellence in operations, “we will all have to move beyond watching every dollar to scrutinizing every penny,” he said. “Our soldiers deserve the best possible training to maintain the world class standard they have set on operations.”

Photo: MCpl Vaughan Lightowler, Army News, Petawawa

Project Number: 09-0883


----------



## George Wallace

Well!  There is one other option, that has so far not been mentioned, and that is to take the Class B Reservists and put them on PRL.  That takes them off the Unit rolls, and places them onto the rolls of the employing organization.  That means that the Class B on a contract at a dot.com is completely under their administration.  They may wear a certain hatbadge, but they do not belong to that Unit; they belong to the dot.com.  A member of the OntR working a Class B in Borden, would belong to Base Borden's rolls, and have no administrative links to the OntR in Oshawa.  

There is no need of the Class B being put into the position that (s)he has to make a life decision to CT or not.  It is a matter of the CF and DND properly managing their hiring practices fairly.


----------



## brihard

At least I got my invitation to the 2010 army run...


----------



## Haggis

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well!  There is one other option, that has so far not been mentioned, and that is to take the Class B Reservists and put them on PRL.  That takes them off the Unit rolls, and places them onto the rolls of the employing organization.  That means that the Class B on a contract at a dot.com is completely under their administration.  They may wear a certain hatbadge, but they do not belong to that Unit; they belong to the dot.com.  A member of the OntR working a Class B in Borden, would belong to Base Borden's rolls, and have no administrative links to the OntR in Oshawa.



100% agree, George.  If a Reservist is on Class B outside the parent unit (i.e. NDHQ, LFDTS, CMTC etc.) and is either *unable* or *unwilling* to parade with a unit, then they should be transferred to a PRL.


----------



## Spanky

And yet, there was no mention of Class A reservists.  A figure of 300 must be more palatable to the public than the larger number (in the 1,000s?) that are being affected, to varying degrees.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well!  There is one other option, that has so far not been mentioned, and that is to take the Class B Reservists and put them on PRL.  That takes them off the Unit rolls, and places them onto the rolls of the employing organization.  That means that the Class B on a contract at a dot.com is completely under their administration.  They may wear a certain hatbadge, but they do not belong to that Unit; they belong to the dot.com.


What does this option do for the problem being discussed (reduced funding for full & part time reserve employment)?  It will not magically produce new money to keep all the class B positions.  Employing units should already be paying for Class B reservists, so it does not make more Class A money available to the home unit.  This options does not seem to anything for the reduced Class A days or the loss of Class B jobs.


----------



## Larkvall

I have heard in recent years that BMQ hasn't been run in the summer in many parts of the country due to the lack of instructors. However, with so many BMQ courses being cancelled won't there be a lesser demand for SQ courses and possibly some trade courses thus  freeing instructors up?
Has there been any talk running BMQ courses in the summer in the halls of power?


----------



## George Wallace

Larkvall said:
			
		

> I have heard in recent years that BMQ hasn't been run in the summer in many parts of the country due to the lack of instructors. However, with so many BMQ courses being cancelled won't there be a lesser demand for SQ courses and possibly some trade courses thus  freeing instructors up?
> Has there been any talk running BMQ courses in the summer in the halls of power?



If only it were that simple.

Let's see:

Shortage of Instructors.   Need to run more PLQ crses.

No PLQ crses.  No new Instructors.

Current numbers of Instructors available getting smaller, due to CT or Release.

Greater shortage of Instructors.

No courses........


Solution:

More BMQ and BMQ (L) to provide soldiers from which a pool can be made of potential candidates for a PLQ crse.  More PLQ crses to provide more Instructors, who can then teach more courses, CT, go on Tour, or Release without greatly deminishing the Reserves.  This is a long term program, as the time to produce candidates for Leadership courses, and the affects of pers doing CTs or going on Tour keeps the amount of fully trained pers to a minimum in most Reserve Units.


----------



## Haggis

MCG said:
			
		

> What does this option do for the problem being discussed (reduced funding for full & part time reserve employment)?  It will not magically produce new money to keep all the class B positions.



But it could change the perception of how many Army Reservists are on Class B and bring it more in line with the reality of how many are employed in and paid for by the Army.

If a Class B Army Reservist is not employed by the Army (i.e. NDHQ, CFRC, CFLRS types) then they should not still be on the Army Reserve establishment.  There are many, many Class B Army Reservists who are employed outside the Army, but still paid by their parent units for convenience.  There are many reasons for this but it's mostly becasue they don't want to transfer to a PRL (and the units don't want to transfer them because they fear losing them forever).  Life on the PRL doesn't offer the same career progression/advancement opportunites that you would find while on unit strength.  So, members who never darken the Armoury door will stay on the unit establsihment in order to have access to career courses, neat taskings and deployment opportunities.

In my opinion, if you're on a Class B away from your parent unit for greater than a year and have no desire or ability to parade with your parent unit (or a similar unit close by) then get off the Army Reserve establishement and transfer to a PRL.  Quit being a speed bump in succession planning and tying up a line serial that you cannot/will not use.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:
			
		

> But it could change the perception of how many Army Reservists are on Class B and bring it more in line with the reality of how many are employed in and paid for by the Army.
> 
> If a Class B Army Reservist is not employed by the Army (i.e. NDHQ, CFRC, CFLRS types) then they should not still be on the Army Reserve establishment.  There are many, many Class B Army Reservists who are employed outside the Army, but still paid by their parent units for convenience.  There are many reasons for this but it's mostly becasue they don't want to transfer to a PRL (and the units don't want to transfer them because they fear losing them forever).  Life on the PRL doesn't offer the same career progression/advancement opportunites that you would find while on unit strength.  So, members who never darken the Armoury door will stay on the unit establsihment in order to have access to career courses, neat taskings and deployment opportunities.
> 
> In my opinion, if you're on a Class B away from your parent unit for greater than a year and have no desire or ability to parade with your parent unit (or a similar unit close by) then get off the Army Reserve establishement and transfer to a PRL.  Quit being a speed bump in succession planning and tying up a line serial that you cannot/will not use.



Hear hear. I often feel that my regiment is the Liberia of the army reserves- we're the flag of convenience for whoever wants long term class B in the NCR. There have been confirmed sightings of a Col at NDHQ wearing our headdress who was last employed by the regiment in the mid 80s (we won't get into the question of why a colonel is wearing a reserve regiment's uniform in lieu of the generic colonel getup). Go to just about any place in the NCR and you'll find reservists in funny hats who haven't graced the armouries with their presence in _years_ but are still holding a regimental line serial. Sorry, but if you cannot make time to help the unit out, you shouldn't expect the unit to take any further interest in your career progression, nor should you be claiming affiliation with a regiment you've essentially abandoned. If most of our members can go to school full time or work civvie side full time while raising families and still make it in on Thursdays and occasional weekends, buddy working his 8-4 at (pick a building in the NCR) can damned well do the same. If it requires the CO or RSM of the reserve regiment to call his compatriot in the respective organization to hammer out the specifics, so be it.

This year I've seen our guys going on long term class Bs signing agreements with the unit if they intend to continue to make themselves available for training nights or occasional exercises. I don't know what consequences are attending noncompliance or where this is viewed as going long term, but I really hope someone higher up in our unit is looking at ways to cut dead weight line serials. PRL is not a solution to the larger problems in the reserves, but it IS a solution to problems individual regiments are seeing with long term class B regimental absenteeism.


----------



## Harris

Law & Order said:
			
		

> The money WAS there for 37 1/2 training days a year.  Since the scale back or what have you, those at the top asked to cut 3 days, to make it 34 1/2 training days a year per class A soldier.  So where did the money go for these reserve units that stood down early, standing back up late, and are on one training night a month?



Well first, Units (at least in LFAA) are funded for 70% (IIRC) of their manning.  So in a Unit of 100 pers, funding is only given for an average of 70 pers per trg event.  So if more than 70% show up to an event, then that $ has to come from somewhere else.

Next there are other things, like Regular Force backfill money.  For example say a Unit is assigned a Regular Force Captain, but no one is available to be posted in.  Normally the Unit is given funds to match what a Captain would make so they could hire a Reservist to fill the posn.  This year it appears in some Units the $ isn't coming.  So Units will have had to take that Class B pay out of the Class A budget.

I'm not saying that there aren't Units out there who haven't mismanaged their funds, I am saying that some Units have had some challenges thrown at them.


----------



## McG

Haggis said:
			
		

> But it could change the perception of how many Army Reservists are on Class B and bring it more in line with the reality of how many are employed in and paid for by the Army.


Change who's perspective?  What is that perspective now, and how does that perspective impact the subject of this thread (reduction of pay for Class A days)?



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> If a Class B Army Reservist is not employed by the Army (i.e. NDHQ, CFRC, CFLRS types) then they should not still be on the Army Reserve establishment.


There are Class B reservists employed by the Army in NDHQ.  So many that the Army has its own PRL to look after most of them.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> There are many, many Class B Army Reservists who are employed outside the Army, but still paid by their parent units for convenience.


If the unit is stupid enough to squander its money into paying for employment of pers for another organization, then the problem is entirely in the HQ of that unit.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> There are many reasons for this but it's mostly becasue they don't want to transfer to a PRL (and the units don't want to transfer them because they fear losing them forever).


A reservist does not need to be on a PRL for a separate employing unit to pay the member.  The employing unit provides an appropriate fin code to the home unit, and the home unit budget has no impact from the ERE Class B.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> In my opinion, if you're on a Class B away from your parent unit for greater than a year and have no desire or ability to parade with your parent unit (or a similar unit close by) then get off the Army Reserve establishement and transfer to a PRL.  Quit being a speed bump in succession planning and tying up a line serial that you cannot/will not use.


Sure, but I still do not see how that is in any way relevant to this thread.




			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Go to just about any place in the NCR and you'll find reservists in funny hats who haven't graced the armouries with their presence in _years_ but are still holding a regimental line serial. Sorry, but if you cannot make time to help the unit out, you shouldn't expect the unit to take any further interest in your career progression, nor should you be claiming affiliation with a regiment you've essentially abandoned.


Even on a PRL, Reservists will continue to wear the regimental accoutrement of wherever they came from (in some cases, those accoutrement will even be regular force where a member retired into the PRL).

In any case, I think the availability of PRLs is inflated in a few minds here.  Most units, bases & formations do not have a PRL.  LFDTS is full of fulltime reservists, but there is no PRL there (not even down in CTC).  The only PRLs that I am familiar with are the NDHQ PRL & the LFC PRL (and both serving mainly the NCR).  I assume there are other PRLs (MARCOM and AIRCOM come to mind as likely), but for most cases that I know of there is no PRL.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> PRL is not a solution to the larger problems in the reserves, but it IS a solution to problems individual regiments are seeing with long term class B regimental absenteeism.


Maybe, but Class B "regimental absenteeism" is not the subject of this thread.  However, if you really want to get into Class B headquarters bloat and solutions for those impacts on units, then maybe you'd like to take a look at this proposal:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/88898/post-891497#msg891497


----------



## CountDC

Kevin_M said:
			
		

> Oh I wouldn't doubt it. I hope not though since this is my only job. 20-25 class A days a month is the greatest job I've ever had.



I hope that is a joke as it is against regulations.  I know of one case where a member did work class a for 3 months like that and the period has now been ordered changed to class b. The employing unit  has to cough up the extra money. More money gone from regular unit training.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Now begs to ask the question if these "20-25" Class A Days where they full days (i.e. over 6 hrs) or half days (i.e. less than 6 hrs)


----------



## CountDC

Brihard said:
			
		

> Hear hear. I often feel that my regiment is the Liberia of the army reserves- we're the flag of convenience for whoever wants long term class B in the NCR. There have been confirmed sightings of a Col at NDHQ wearing our headdress who was last employed by the regiment in the mid 80s (we won't get into the question of why a colonel is wearing a reserve regiment's uniform in lieu of the generic colonel getup). Go to just about any place in the NCR and you'll find reservists in funny hats who haven't graced the armouries with their presence in _years_ but are still holding a regimental line serial. Sorry, but if you cannot make time to help the unit out, you shouldn't expect the unit to take any further interest in your career progression, nor should you be claiming affiliation with a regiment you've essentially abandoned. If most of our members can go to school full time or work civvie side full time while raising families and still make it in on Thursdays and occasional weekends, buddy working his 8-4 at (pick a building in the NCR) can damned well do the same. If it requires the CO or RSM of the reserve regiment to call his compatriot in the respective organization to hammer out the specifics, so be it.
> 
> This year I've seen our guys going on long term class Bs signing agreements with the unit if they intend to continue to make themselves available for training nights or occasional exercises. I don't know what consequences are attending noncompliance or where this is viewed as going long term, but I really hope someone higher up in our unit is looking at ways to cut dead weight line serials. PRL is not a solution to the larger problems in the reserves, but it IS a solution to problems individual regiments are seeing with long term class B regimental absenteeism.



I agree with you both that the system should be changed so that members going on long term class b away from the unit are either transferred to the employing unit or a prl. Although it will not free funds it will give a better indication of where all the class b employment is.

As for working at the unit while on class b - units are not able to enforce this and the member is not allowed to do it unless the CO of the employing unit authorizes.  The fact that your unit has people sign an agreement to do this isn't worth the paper it is written on as it does not comply with regulations and would not stand the challenge by any member. A member on class b is paid 24/7 by the employing CO and belongs to him 24/7.  

As for your comment on many going to school, working civvie side and making it in so the class b should - they also get compensated while the class b doesn't.


----------



## George Wallace

Wandering off topic a little, again, but LFCA came out with a policy for Class B "overtime".  When a Class B Reservist parades with his unit on an evening, they are permitted to come in to their place of work at 1000 hrs the next day.  If they work a weekend with their Unit, they are permitted one day immediately following as CTO.


----------



## CountDC

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Now begs to ask the question if these "20-25" Class A Days where they full days (i.e. over 6 hrs) or half days (i.e. less than 6 hrs)



doesn't matter - the regulation does not seperate the two to avoid units pulling a sneaky and employing a member for just under 6 hours every day. It counts half and full the same - as a day worked.  The case I mentioned had both.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

CountDC said:
			
		

> doesn't matter - the regulation does not seperate the two to avoid units pulling a sneaky and employing a member for just under 6 hours every day. It counts half and full the same - as a day worked.  The case I mentioned had both.



Roger that CountDC .......



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wandering off topic a little, again, but LFCA came out with a policy for Class B "overtime".  When a Class B Reservist parades with his unit on an evening, they are permitted to come in to their place of work at 1000 hrs the next day.  If they work a weekend with their Unit, they are permitted one day immediately following as CTO.



Works similarly at my unit too George the ClassB/A's and Class B crowd usually come in at 0900/1000 on Fridays as we parade Thursday night.


----------



## Haggis

CountDC said:
			
		

> I agree with you both that the system should be changed so that members going on long term class b away from the unit are either transferred to the employing unit or a prl. Although it will not free funds it will give a better indication of where all the class b employment is.



Part of the problem lies with those members swho remain on unit strength and are paid by the unit through RPSR.  Even if the funds are eventually recovered from the employing unit, _it appears_, through RPSR reporting, that the member is paid for by the Army.  



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> As for working at the unit while on class b - units are not able to enforce this and the member is not allowed to do it unless the CO of the employing unit authorizes.  The fact that your unit has people sign an agreement to do this isn't worth the paper it is written on as it does not comply with regulations and would not stand the challenge by any member. A member on class b is paid 24/7 by the employing CO and belongs to him 24/7.



If the employing unit concurs (and the regulation is written in such a way that the employing unit must justify refusing to do so) then it's expected that the Class B member will make the effort to parade at least as much as his Class A counterpart.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> As for your comment on many going to school, working civvie side and making it in so the class b should - they also get compensated while the class b doesn't.



No, the Class B gets paid for each and every weekend whether he works or not, some get CTO, all get annual leave.  The Class A member gets paid only for the weekends he works and usually has to use his civvy vacation to go on longer exercises. A Class B guy doesn't have to forfeit his annual leave to take a career course.  A Class A guy does.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wandering off topic a little, again, but LFCA came out with a policy for Class B "overtime".  When a Class B Reservist parades with his unit on an evening, they are permitted to come in to their place of work at 1000 hrs the next day.  If they work a weekend with their Unit, they are permitted one day immediately following as CTO.



That policy only applies to Class B members employed in units within LFCA.  It does not benefit those employed in Ontario but outside the Army such as NDHQ, CFSU (Ottawa) CFRG, CFRETS etc.  (Try showing up at your "outside" (civvy or NDHQ) job at 1000 hrs the morning after a parade night and see how long it is before support for your parading is rescinded.)

CTO= undocumented short leave and is not proivided for in the CF leave policy manual.  The regulations for short leave state that it "*may* be granted" not "*shall* be granted".


----------



## CountDC

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wandering off topic a little, again, but LFCA came out with a policy for Class B "overtime".  When a Class B Reservist parades with his unit on an evening, they are permitted to come in to their place of work at 1000 hrs the next day.  If they work a weekend with their Unit, they are permitted one day immediately following as CTO.



By which I am assuming that the LFCA Comd has informed the unit CO's that they will sign the paperwork authorizing the member to parade at the home unit.  Without the paperwork done I would be worried about pension or compensatoin implications if the member was injured. First thing they will look for on a Request for Compensation or Pension application is the authority for the member to be there and that is only done by the employing CO.   Not saying the member will not get compensation in the end but it will make it a lot quicker and easier.

Also this is only applicable to units that fall under LFCA - the member employed here would be told to pound sand if they tried that.  But then we make use of the PRL for all our long term class b.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> Part of the problem lies with those members swho remain on unit strength and are paid by the unit through RPSR.  Even if the funds are eventually recovered from the employing unit, _it appears_, through RPSR reporting, that the member is paid for by the Army.



This is extremely rare - few units will post a class B in RPSR with the promise of "Fin Code to Follow".   Indeed, any class B employment message will include the fin code.

If a unit is lead and managed by people stupid enough to pay for someone else's class B with a promise of future reimbursement, they get what they deserve.


----------



## Brasidas

Haggis said:
			
		

> If the employing unit concurs (and the regulation is written in such a way that the employing unit must justify refusing to do so) then it's expected that the Class B member will make the effort to parade at least as much as his Class A counterpart.



What regulation is it that governs this?



> No, the Class B gets paid for each and every weekend whether he works or not, some get CTO, all get annual leave.  The Class A member gets paid only for the weekends he works and usually has to use his civvy vacation to go on longer exercises. A Class B guy doesn't have to forfeit his annual leave to take a career course.  A Class A guy does.



I know a number of Class B guys, all of whom are taking up unfilled reg force spots. They work with the unit they're employed at, doing their jobs alongside their regforce counterparts. They go where they're told, when they're told, and have never been expected to show up at their home unit. Some of them haven't been there in years.

The employing unit doesn't like letting them go for career courses, which is unsurprising since it's a short term contract.



> That policy only applies to Class B members employed in units within LFCA.  It does not benefit those employed in Ontario but outside the Army such as NDHQ, CFSU (Ottawa) CFRG, CFRETS etc.  (Try showing up at your "outside" (civvy or NDHQ) job at 1000 hrs the morning after a parade night and see how long it is before support for your parading is rescinded.)



Ah, so it's an LFCA policy. I'm still not seeing a reason why a reservist shouldn't take a fulltime contract without being expected to spend his evenings and weekends working at his home unit. If the employing unit sends him to the field during a three week ex, he spends three weeks in the field. If they give him the following weekend off, he gets the weekend off instead of going to do a range ex with class A reservists.

I doubt we're going to agree on this, but that's my viewpoint. With the cutbacks on class A time, I also doubt it's going to make much of a difference as there aren't going to be all that many weekend ex's this spring.


----------



## Jarnhamar

A big factor is distance IMO.

If a reservists takes a class B contract somewhere they are not obligated to train with their parent unit but are invited to do so.
We had soldiers soldiers on a short few month class B tasking just about 2 hours away. We assumed they would not be down for Thursday night training.  Thats 2 hours away. If they were in the same city (a la Ottawa) then why can't they make the extra effort and show up to work?

In my (our) case we prompted them to attend weekend ex's with the unit- and why hell not. Just because their weekends are paid for does not mean they can't support the unit that sent them there in the first place. It also meant they would be IBTS qualified and we wouldn't have to play catch up with them later.

Some soldiers will go out of their way to support their unit. I had to tell two soldiers in my section NO stay put. They were in Meaford on a drivers course and they were doing everything they could to get a ride to Petawawa for a weekend ex then back to Meaford. That's devotion.
At the same time I've had soldiers whom I've "thrown a bone to" and got them nice class A taskings during the week (same city) and they don't bother to show up for a Thursday night of training since they already got paid for the day.

It's not a rule but if someone is on a class B contract in the same city it behooves them to go a little further and support their unit. I know as far as I'm concerned I won't do anyone any favors for work  who have a shitty attitude. It's usually the senior guys to who are bad for that (up to and including a junior leader who tried telling two privates not to attend weekend ex's because it made him look bad).
It's an unwritten rule but when you're on class B and it's feasible usually it's expected that you show up for important training.

(Respectfully) Brihard's unit IS pretty bad for phantom class B guys.  I remember a Sgt ( with 10 years) and I bumping into someone with his cap badge overseas who the sgt had never met before.


----------



## George Wallace

It boils down to the morals, ethics and dedication of the individuals.  

At the same time one can not be expected to work five days a week, evenings and then weekends on end to support the Unit.   There is a life outside of the Reserves, be it family or just friends, and some down time is necessary for one's mental health.  In Garrison one does not have to work 24 and 7.  On Exercise or Deployment it is different, but there is no need to do so for any long period of time at the Unit.

Hope that sorts out some of what has been posted so far, that may make people think that we are painting all Class B with the same brush.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This is extremely rare - few units will post a class B in RPSR with the promise of "Fin Code to Follow".   Indeed, any class B employment message will include the fin code.



It's more common than many realize.

I sit across the cube farm wall from the guy who is working on the Class B rationalization for the Army Reserve.  You'd be surprised to see how many Class B's are paid for by the parent unit in RPSR and the funds are (either simultaneously or retroactively) recovered from the employing unit's fin code.  As I said, in these cases the member _appears_  to be on the Army Reserve payroll, regardless of who he actually works for.



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> What regulation is it that governs this?



CF Military Personnel Instruction 20-04:

2.15 Voluntary Reserve Service while on Cl “B” or “C” Reserve Service
A member on Cl "B" or "C" Reserve Service may, with the mutual approval of all units involved voluntarily continue to serve with a unit, subject to the limitations at para 2.13(b). This service shall be performed in the same rank that the member is authorized to wear on the Cl "B" or "C" Reserve Service. Approval of this service depends on factors such as distance between the two units, time available, and other personal, CF and/or operational requirements. There is no obligation on the member to perform this type of duty. The following conditions apply: 

a.it must be authorized in writing prior to commencement. Administrative details are detailed at ref A; 
b.on any calendar day, reservists are only entitled to be placed on one Cl of Reserve Service, therefore the members shall only receive pay for either the Cl “B” or “C” Reserve Service rate of pay to which the member is entitled by CBIs; 
c.allowances, when authorized, are still applicable; and 
d.the member may be granted short leave IAW DAOD 5060-0, Leave by the employing unit to compensate for the service the member performed..

Annex D (which is not available. on the Internet) places the onus on the employing unit to justify why a member is refused the opportunity to parade.



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> I know a number of Class B guys, all of whom are taking up unfilled reg force spots. They work with the unit they're employed at, doing their jobs alongside their regforce counterparts. They go where they're told, when they're told, and have never been expected to show up at their home unit. Some of them haven't been there in years.



If they've been there for years then they should be transferrred to the employing unit (EU) or a suitable PRL.  Remaining on the unit strength only ties up a line serial, hampering recruiting and successsion planning.



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> The employing unit doesn't like letting them go for career courses, which is unsurprising since it's a short term contract.


 Completely understandable on short term contracts.  But on contracts of a year or more, the member should be afforded the opportunity to take career courses.  However some EUs aren't accomodating because the member "was hired at a specific rank for a specific purpose" and allowing him to qualify for promotion means that he may leave.


----------



## Brasidas

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's more common than many realize.
> 
> I sit across the cube farm wall from the guy who is working on the Class B rationalization for the Army Reserve.  You'd be surprised to see how many Class B's are paid for by the parent unit in RPSR and the funds are (either simultaneously or retroactively) recovered from the employing unit's fin code.  As I said, in these cases the member _appears_  to be on the Army Reserve payroll, regardless of who he actually works for.
> 
> CF Military Personnel Instruction 20-04:
> 
> 2.15* Voluntary* Reserve Service while on Cl “B” or “C” Reserve Service
> A member on Cl "B" or "C" Reserve Service may, with the mutual approval of all units involved *voluntarily* continue to serve with a unit, subject to the limitations at para 2.13(b). This service shall be performed in the same rank that the member is authorized to wear on the Cl "B" or "C" Reserve Service. Approval of this service depends on factors such as distance between the two units, time available, and other personal, CF and/or operational requirements. *There is no obligation on the member to perform this type of duty.*




And the operational line looks like the last one. There is no obligation for buddy to show up for class A training days under this reg. He has to ask for permission before he's even allowed to show up at his old unit. I've got no problem with buddy showing up at his unit for IBTS if he wants to, but I can see units being a little optimistic to expect them to show up for most unit training.

That said, if there's another LFCA-approved policy saying they've got to show up, then I guess they've got to.



> If they've been there for years then they should be transferrred to the employing unit (EU) or a suitable PRL.  Remaining on the unit strength only ties up a line serial, hampering recruiting and successsion planning.
> Completely understandable on short term contracts.  But on contracts of a year or more, the member should be afforded the opportunity to take career courses.  However some EUs aren't accomodating because the member "was hired at a specific rank for a specific purpose" and allowing him to qualify for promotion means that he may leave.



Given that I'm thinking of a guy whose unit has had to argue in excess  of a year against the "was hired at a specific rank for a specific purpose" in order to get on PLQ, I can understand why he'd want to stay on with a unit that'd stick up for him. If they're on good terms with their unit, and the unit expects to get somebody back with some solid experience down the road, both parties can be happy with the arrangement.


----------



## George Wallace

DND and the CF have encouraged the Public Sector to give Reservists time off to train.  I have noticed that DND and the CF are the worse offenders when it does come to not giving Reservists on Class B time to train, deploy or go on course.

Brasidas

Just a note:  A person on Class B can not sign for Class A pay.  (If that was what you were indicating.)


[Edit to add.]   I have also noticed that DND and the CF are the worse offenders when it does come to not giving Reservists working for DND as civilians time to train, deploy or go on course.


----------



## Brasidas

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Brasidas
> 
> Just a note:  A person on Class B can not sign for Class A pay.  (If that was what you were indicating.)



I understand that. My concern was regarding others' expectations of a reservist being obligated to regularly show up back at their unit while being on class B. 

Your point's taken regarding employing units being somewhat less than enthusiastic about accommodating a reservist parading with their home unit, and I basically agree with your earlier post.  My friends are all in good shape in that they decide when to participate with their unit, which is pretty much just mess dinners. I've heard stories of folks being pressured by their unit, however, being told that they're supposed to show up for virtually everything back at their reserve unit at the same time as their class B unless it was a direct conflict (eg. I can't show up for IBTS 'cause I'm in Wainwright).

That's hearsay and I haven't recounted those stories as I have the acceptedly absent class B'ers from my unit, but some of the comments about what class B'ers were expected to do got me motivated to discuss these expectations.


----------



## Haggis

What really frosts my pumpkin is the guy who begs the unit to nominate him for a Class B, uses the CO/OC, RSM/CSM as a reference, the unit concurs with his employment and he gets hired for, say, three years.  Agrees to parade and gets his Annex D signed off by all concerned.  He never parades (Sorry, unit, but I'm too busy on the Class B job).  Later, goes through the parent unit for a career course.  Gets loaded and then "no-shows" on the course.  Who gest stuck answering to that?  The parent unit.  The unit smooths things over with the EU and the school and then, when this guy is asked to help the unit out on a major event, he goes ninja.

The other side of this is the soldier on a long Class B who gets course loaded and promoted by the EU ahead of his unit peers (and before he's ready in the opinion of the parent unit - and his PERs) simply because the EU needs a (insert rank here) position filled and this soldier was availaible for the course.

Seen both scenarios.  Don't like either.


----------



## Brasidas

Haggis said:
			
		

> Seen both scenarios.  Don't like either.



Fair enough.


----------



## Dissident

Haggis said:
			
		

> Seen both scenarios.  Don't like either.



Neither do I.

Especially when the member is employed out of trade, gets loaded on the PLQ of their choice, and will get promoted once they come back to their out of unit desk job.

All the while I would not want them leading a tour of the building.

But is it me  and my Bacardi or are we getting off topic here


----------



## George Wallace

Dissident said:
			
		

> But is it me  and my Bacardi or are we getting off topic here



A little bit.  We have to remember that like all the soldiers in the Reserves, all Class B employment opportunities are "individual", so many have no resemblance to another.  We have worse case scenarios, and also best case scenarios.  All we can hope for is that the majority fall into the medium.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's more common than many realize.
> 
> I sit across the cube farm wall from the guy who is working on the Class B rationalization for the Army Reserve.  You'd be surprised to see how many Class B's are paid for by the parent unit in RPSR and the funds are (either simultaneously or retroactively) recovered from the employing unit's fin code.  As I said, in these cases the member _appears_  to be on the Army Reserve payroll, regardless of who he actually works for.



As the one who, until 15 months ago, ran the numbers for the Army I have a very good idea of how it works.  The number paid by their units with the funds SA`d back from the employer was under 1%; background noise in the big picture.  There are many folks on the unit rolls but paid by another fin code; identifying where they work is a trivial exercise - I left a briefing package and reference material in case anyone was ever was hired behind me.

Overall, the Army is woefully ignorant about what its people are doing.  The information is there; it`s not a huge chore to refine it so it`s useful - but the senior leadership (starting in the incompetent G1 branch) don`t care to know or do their jobs.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As the one who, until 15 months ago, ran the numbers for the Army I have a very good idea of how it works.  The number paid by their units with the funds SA`d back from the employer was under 1%; background noise in the big picture.  There are many folks on the unit rolls but paid by another fin code; identifying where they work is a trivial exercise - I left a briefing package and reference material in case anyone was ever was hired behind me.



As the one who fields many of the data related questions from my cube-neighbour, I would daresay that data quality has deteriorated in the last 15 months and no one saw your briefing package (least of all my cube-neighbour).  But I'll be sure to tell him where to start looking.


----------



## dapaterson

The old timers in DGLRes know how to reach me - though I'm on leave 'til the 30th.


----------



## CountDC

Haggis said:
			
		

> CF Military Personnel Instruction 20-04:
> 
> 2.15 Voluntary Reserve Service while on Cl “B” or “C” Reserve Service
> A member on Cl "B" or "C" Reserve Service may, with the mutual approval of all units involved voluntarily continue to serve with a unit, subject to the limitations at para 2.13(b). This service shall be performed in the same rank that the member is authorized to wear on the Cl "B" or "C" Reserve Service. Approval of this service depends on factors such as distance between the two units, time available, and other personal, CF and/or operational requirements. There is no obligation on the member to perform this type of duty. The following conditions apply:
> 
> a.it must be authorized in writing prior to commencement. Administrative details are detailed at ref A;
> b.on any calendar day, reservists are only entitled to be placed on one Cl of Reserve Service, therefore the members shall only receive pay for either the Cl “B” or “C” Reserve Service rate of pay to which the member is entitled by CBIs;
> c.allowances, when authorized, are still applicable; and
> d.the member may be granted short leave IAW DAOD 5060-0, Leave by the employing unit to compensate for the service the member performed..
> 
> Annex D (which is not available. on the Internet) places the onus on the employing unit to justify why a member is refused the opportunity to parade.



http://hr3.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dhrim/mhrrp/ch19/engraph/ANNE_e.dot  (DWAN link)

Don't know about Annex D but Annex E of APM 245 is:

Part 5 – Employment / Host Unit Commanding Officer’s Approval 
With respect to the member’s voluntary service application above, (cross out non applicable information and *substantiate lack of approval*):
I approve / I do not approve the terms of service detailed in Part 2 above
Comments (if applicable):      

 Reproduce this pro forma locally	Date of Issue: *28 Feb 09*

Big change from what it used to be.  Still the home unit can not order the member to parade with them, it is up to the member to decide if he wants to and request approval.  Even if the member requests approval he is not required to attend - it is voluntary. Sure the unit will be PO'd but it is up to the member.

Maybe someone here knows current policy - few years ago (ok maybe more than a few) a unit CO was informed that he could not refuse to submit a members name for a class b opp applyed for. If the member submitted his application the only thing the CO could do was forward it with his comments not recommending the member for the job.  It was explained that if the CO did not forward it the member could redress and if he won the funds to compensate him may come from the CO's budget.  I think I remember the details correctly but it was a "few" years ago.


----------



## dapaterson

CountDC:

Still pretty much the way you describe it.  I've seen one very unflattering cover letter from someone's commander - "Given the choice, I would not work with this individual again."  Generally, it's a terse "Unit concurs with nomination."


----------



## Jarnhamar

[Brihard you freedom hater clean out your inbox it's full]  ;D


----------



## Haggis

CountDC said:
			
		

> http://hr3.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dhrim/mhrrp/ch19/engraph/ANNE_e.dot  (DWAN link)
> Big change from what it used to be.  Still the home unit can not order the member to parade with them, it is up to the member to decide if he wants to and request approval.  Even if the member requests approval he is not required to attend - it is voluntary. Sure the unit will be PO'd but it is up to the member.



It's expected if such approval is granted that the member will parade _at least_ as often as his average Class A counterpart, particularly if his EU is granting "CTO".

About three years ago, I was involved with three young Class B troops who had been granted this permission by the EU and were also granted (and took) regular "CTO" even though they rarely paraded with the parent unit.  One went as far as to "mom & pop" the EU and the parent unit to get himself on a PLQ.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Maybe someone here knows current policy - few years ago (ok maybe more than a few) a unit CO was informed that he could not refuse to submit a members name for a class b opp applyed for. If the member submitted his application the only thing the CO could do was forward it with his comments not recommending the member for the job.  It was explained that if the CO did not forward it the member could redress and if he won the funds to compensate him may come from the CO's budget.  I think I remember the details correctly but it was a "few" years ago.



I've been involved in a couple of redresses of this nature in the past year, from a policy interpretation perspective.  The parent unit CO is _not obliged _ to reccommend any member for Class B employment and there are many many reasons why a CO would not do so (member is not a good "fit", is a disciplinary/admin burden, fails to meet prerequisiites, or the job may set the member up for failure, just to name a few).  

The ultimate decision to hire a member on Class B rests with the EU, but the EU cannot hire a member without CO/chain of command concurrence.

And a Merry Christmas to all.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Haggis said:
			
		

> I've been involved in a couple of redresses of this nature in the past year, from a policy interpretation perspective.  The parent unit CO is _not obliged _ to reccommend any member for Class B employment and there are many many reasons why a CO would not do so (member is not a good "fit", is a disciplinary/admin burden, fails to meet prerequisiites, or the job may set the member up for failure, just to name a few).
> 
> The ultimate decision to hire a member on Class B rests with the EU, but the EU cannot hire a member without CO/chain of command concurrence.
> 
> And a Merry Christmas to all.



What irks me is when a soldier puts on a big song and dance promising to attend training nights and weekend ex's and functions and ties to sell himself. Gets a class B then it's one excuse after another why they can't show up for a simple weekend supporting their regiment (Especially if they are or on the path to being  a leader).  Then when their class B is finished their back at the unit begging for more work with more empty promises.
If it was up to me I wouldn't send someone like this on another class B job unless there was absolutely no one else interested in the spot.


----------



## Harris

Haggis said:
			
		

> I've been involved in a couple of redresses of this nature in the past year, from a policy interpretation perspective.  The parent unit CO is _not obliged _ to reccommend any member for Class B employment and there are many many reasons why a CO would not do so (member is not a good "fit", is a disciplinary/admin burden, fails to meet prerequisiites, or the job may set the member up for failure, just to name a few).
> 
> The ultimate decision to hire a member on Class B rests with the EU, but the EU cannot hire a member without CO/chain of command concurrence.



Haggis, could you expand a bit here?  My impression (as told to me by my current CO) is that while not obligated to recommend someone, he must forward the application onwards.  You last line suggests that it is the CO, not the EU who has final decision on hiring as they need the CO's concurrence.  Is my view correct?  And if so do you have a reference I could use?


----------



## brihard

Flawed-

PM box emptied. Sorry about that. I was gone for a couple days hating freedom.  ;D


----------



## Haggis

Harris said:
			
		

> Haggis, could you expand a bit here?  My impression (as told to me by my current CO) is that while not obligated to recommend someone, he must forward the application onwards.



If the CO has no intention of giving concurrence in the event that the member is hired, then why nominate the member? 



			
				Harris said:
			
		

> Your last line suggests that it is the CO, not the EU who has final decision on hiring as they need the CO's concurrence.  Is my view correct?



I can see where it could be confusing.  In many cases, the unit nomination (though higher) will contain the paragraph such as "CO concurs w nomination/potential employment" which tells the EU that the should the member be selected, chain of command concurrence has already been given.  It also infers that the CO supports the member's nomination. 

If all prerequisites are met and concurrence is given by the parent chain of command then the decision to employ that member rests with the EU as the hiring authority.  The EU can choose not to hire that member but someone else who also meets the prerequisites, re-compete the position or no-fill it.  It's their position and their budget.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> If the CO has no intention of giving concurrence in the event that the member is hired, then why nominate the member?



Shouldnt it be the employing unit that decides whether to hire the member in the end, as they know the details of the job and who they are looking for?

For example, with certain Class B or C employment, the EU is looking for a certain number of Ptes to Sgts for the job. The member's unit doesnt believe that they members submitting their names are ready for the job, for one reason or another, thus they do not forward the nomination and the member doesnt get the position. The member's unit, though, doesnt necessairly have the details on the position, whereas the EU does. Shouldnt the EU be responsible for selecting the member who they think is best suited for the job, in this case? The sodier's unit can voice their concerns,  but the EU is in the best position to make the final decision, no?

Regardless, I have heard this rumor floating around that a unit is not allowed to deny sending an application for a class B employment to the EU. I am not sure whether it is true or not, nor where it originated.



> If all prerequisites are met and concurrence is given by the parent chain of command then the decision to employ that member rests with the EU as the hiring authority.  The EU can choose not to hire that member but someone else who also meets the prerequisites, re-compete the position or no-fill it.  It's their position and their budget.



If the CO does not concur with the nomination, does he still have to forward it? Does he have to explain why he does not concur?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Nero said:
			
		

> but the EU is in the best position to make the final decision, no?


I don't think so.
Maybe we're arguing semantics?
How I see it;
Look at how some below average soldiers still get glowing PERs.
What if a member applying for tasking at PTSC in Kingston (for example) looks great on paper or even just has the qualifications (Cpl, Drivers course, comms couse) but what isn't reflected is that the member has RTUd himself from the last 3 taskings he's been on because of family problems.
He drinks and parties every paycheck away and is constantly making an adminstrative headache for the clerks because he "doesn't have enough money to pay bills" and needs cash advances. He also touches down with a pocket full of 'can't do work' chits and needs a bunch of time off for court dates weddings and anything else.

That makes a bad name for a regiment and probably affects future chances of employment for other members.
The examples I gave are common things I've seen on Class B and C work.

IMO a regiment's CO should have the final say on if a member is allowed to apply for a class B outside the unit and the EU get's the final say once the members CoC has said good to go.


----------



## Larkvall

I am really confused here.   ???

I was told my BMQ in January was cancelled because of the unexpected costs in refurbishing and replacing vehicles for Afghanistan. However, a number of people in this thread are blaming on class B contracts for the funding short fall. Does it cost more for a class B reservist to do a job rather a regular force member?


----------



## dapaterson

The Army's problem is poor planning, poorly implemented, assuming away problems that have now come home to roost.  It has nothing to do with a reset of vehicles from Afghanistan - that's paid from diferent sources of funds than the Army funds currently being reallocated / reduced.

The CF's accounting is opaque at best.  What's happening now is a traditional knee-jerk reaction, being caught at the last minute without contingencies in place - and the troops, in the end, are those who will suffer.

Thought for the day: The Land Staff has over 300% of its entitlement to full-time Reservists - if they were to scale back to even double their entitled level, how much money would that save?  And what difference would that additional funding make to part-time soldiers whose training is being cancelled entirely?


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> Look at how some below average soldiers still get glowing PERs.
> What if a member applying for tasking at PTSC in Kingston (for example) looks great on paper or even just has the qualifications (Cpl, Drivers course, comms couse) but what isn't reflected is that the member has RTUd himself from the last 3 taskings he's been on because of family problems.



Sounds like more of an argument for writing proper PERs than for not submitting nominations. 

Nevertheless, Im not saying the parent CoC does not have any say. There should be a position for the unit to voice their opinion on the member, but I believe the nomination should still be passed up to the EU, even if the parent CoC does not approve him for the job. That way, the EU can read the reason the parent CoC wont let him get the job, and if the parents CoC reasons are not valid, the EU can speak with the CoC and clarify. That way, in your example, the member not deserving the job still wont get it, but the member who the parent CoC wrongfully believes is unqualified for the job can still get the job.



> IMO a regiment's CO should have the final say on if a member is allowed to apply for a class B outside the unit and the EU get's the final say once the members CoC has said good to go.



Very well, but I still say that the CO should pass the nomination up to the EU justifying why he wont allow the member to be employed.


----------



## Haggis

Nero said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, Im not saying the parent CoC does not have any say. There should be a position for the unit to voice their opinion on the member, but I believe the nomination should still be passed up to the EU, even if the parent CoC does not approve him for the job.



And thereby cause the EU staff effort in screening an unsuitable candidate.



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> That way, the EU can read the reason the parent CoC wont let him get the job, and if the parents CoC reasons are not valid, the EU can speak with the CoC and clarify.


  And how does the EU, only knowing the applicant from a résumé, an MPRR and a cover letter, know the CoC's reasons are not valid?



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> That way, in your example, the member not deserving the job still wont get it, but the member who the parent CoC *wrongfully believes is unqualified* for the job can still get the job.



Again , how would the EU be able to know from what little information they have on the applicant, that the CoC's reasons aren't valid?  This clearly undermines the parent unit's authority over the member who, until the second he gets hired, is a member and *under full command* of the parent unit.  



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> Very well, but I still say that the CO should pass the nomination up to the EU justifying why he wont allow the member to be employed.



And allow a mere staff officer in the EU to second guess a Commanding Officer?  You're kidding, right?  Would you apply the same logic to a member who is screened out of a tour, JTF 2, CSOR or a CT by the unit, PSO, doctors, PSP?  Should the mounting unit, JTF 2 or CSOR have the (in your opinion) *right* to challenge the selection process results?

Seems to me that you have little faith in the CoC's ability to manage it's members and their employment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Years ago I did class B as the RQMS for my unit, I was expected to be there 6 days a week plus thursday night (we paraded 1.5 days a week)  and any exercises, just part of the job.


----------



## Spanky

Our unit has a procedure for soldiers to follow should they request a Class B.  Sometimes it's even followed.  If a soldier wishes to apply for a Class B position they must submit an application through the chain.  It goes to the Tp Ldr/WO, then to the OC/SSM, then to the CO/RSM.  Each rung on the ladder either signs off or indicates concerns.  If there is more than one soldier who applies, they are merit listed.  The receiving unit has absolutely no idea who or what they are getting in terms of applicants.  If a soldier meets the job requirements in terms of rank and qualification, then I'm sure the EU would appreciate a unit doing the vetting for them.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> And thereby cause the EU staff effort in screening an unsuitable candidate.



But what if the candidate is suited for the job, as the EU would determine, but the parent unit doesnt think so? Who better to determine the suitability than the EU?



> And how does the EU, only knowing the applicant from a résumé, an MPRR and a cover letter, know the CoC's reasons are not valid?



What I propose is that if the CoC does not believe the member is suited, they state their reasons on the cover letter. Then, the EU could read the reason, and determine if it is valid or not.  Do you think that would not work?



> Again , how would the EU be able to know from what little information they have on the applicant, that the CoC's reasons aren't valid?  This clearly undermines the parent unit's authority over the member who, until the second he gets hired, is a member and under full command of the parent unit.



That is true. At the same time though, how does the parent unit, not knowing the full details of the job, know that the member is not fully suited for the employment?

I suppose this doesnt apply to the vast majority of those Class Bs available, but I've seen a few Class Cs come by with vague details as to what the member would be doing, and the parent unit saying they believe no one is "ready" to do it, hence they would not support applications for it. By ready I do not mean administratively ready, but rather refering to their capability.



> And allow a mere staff officer in the EU to second guess a Commanding Officer?  You're kidding, right?



Not second guess, but rather be able to communicate with the CO, that way if there are any misunderstandings they can forward up on the application and attempt to clear them up. In the end, the CO can have the final call, but at least that way maybe misunderstandings can possibly be clarified.

While this may work in theory, I freely admit I can see problems with this system too.



> Would you apply the same logic to a member who is screened out of a tour, JTF 2, CSOR or a CT by the unit, PSO, doctors, PSP?  Should the mounting unit, JTF 2 or CSOR have the (in your opinion) right to challenge the selection process results?
> [/quote
> 
> That is an excellent example to use. Lets say you have a member applying for CSOR. CSOR has its own selection process to determine which members are suited for the job or not. Do you believe the CoC is better suited to determine whether the member is suited for CSOR than the selection process they have? I dont believe so. I think the guys who know exactly what they're looking for are in a better position to say whether the guy "has the stuff" to make it or not.
> 
> I suppose neither system is perfect though.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Nero, that's where faith in the chain of command and leadeship come in.



> But what if the candidate is suited for the job, as the EU would determine, but the parent unit doesn't think so? Who better to determine the suitability than the EU?



Being suited for the job is one thing. Being an appropriate or wise choice is another.  The parent unit doesn't decide if I am suited for a job technical wise- their deciding maturity, professionalism, personal conflictions, work habits whether or not I'll make an ass out of myself.

I see your point of view but you're skipping a lot of steps in the process. Stuff like this needs to be weeded out for lack of a better term at the lowest levels on up.



> Nevertheless, Im not saying the parent CoC does not have any say. There should be a position for the unit to voice their opinion on the member, but I believe the nomination should still be passed up to the EU, even if the parent CoC does not approve him for the job


I just don't agree with this.  Why even bother getting a units concurrence if their going to send them up anyways?

I guarantee when an EU starts getting flocks of soldiers with various administrative and behavioral issues they would  flip their lid and demand the parent merrit and/or sort their people out before sending them.

Also; A parent unit and chain of command has access to a members personal information and privy to personal issues.  I'd bet it would break some kinda rule forwarding that information on a cover letter to an EU.


----------



## Haggis

Nero said:
			
		

> But what if the candidate is suited for the job, as the EU would determine, but the parent unit doesnt think so? Who better to determine the suitability than the EU?


 Opportunity messages clearly state the requirements of the job.  It's up to the unit to match applicants to those requirements and ONLY forward those files that have a chance of being competetive.



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> What I propose is that if the CoC does not believe the member is suited, they state their reasons on the cover letter. Then, the EU could read the reason, and determine if it is valid or not.  Do you think that would not work?


  It could if only the desires of the member were being considerd.  However, the CoC also has to consider both the impact of the job on the member and the the greater needs of the unit.



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> That is true. At the same time though, how does the parent unit, not knowing the full details of the job, know that the member is not fully suited for the employment?


  So, why can't this happen informally?  Have the Trg O call the EU and say, "i've got XXX here intersted in position "y".  Tell me a bit more about it before we nominate him."



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> I suppose this doesn't apply to the vast majority of those Class Bs available, but I've seen a few Class Cs come by with vague details as to what the member would be doing, and the parent unit saying they believe no one is "ready" to do it, hence they would not support applications for it. By ready I do not mean administratively ready, but rather refering to their capability.


  Perhaps the parent unit, through experience and networking, has more insight into the position requirements than the member?  Again, I think you're not giving the CoC credit for being that smart/experienced.   I've done exactly that and I can explain a bit more via PM as it's a bit of a long story.



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> While this may work in theory, I freely admit I can see problems with this system too.


  Like usurping the authority and responsibility of the CO in determining what is best for his members and his unit.



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> That is an excellent example to use. Lets say you have a member applying for CSOR. CSOR has its own selection process to determine which members are suited for the job or not. Do you believe the CoC is better suited to determine whether the member is suited for CSOR than the selection process they have? I dont believe so. I think the guys who know exactly what they're looking for are in a better position to say whether the guy "has the stuff" to make it or not.



No, it's not a good example.  There are two separate processes here.  The first process gets the candidate only as far as attempting the second.  The second process gets the candidate into the training phase which is, in itself, a selection process.

The first process is the responsibility of the unit.  The second and third processes are the responsibility of CSOR.

Hey, mods, my apologies for pursuing this tangent.  Can we split this of into a "Class B Selection Process" thread, please?


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> Also; A parent unit and chain of command has access to a members personal information and privy to personal issues.  I'd bet it would break some kinda rule forwarding that information on a cover letter to an EU.



That is true. Maybe the better way would be for the unit to base their decisions solely the members performance at the unit and whether he deserves the position then.



> Opportunity messages clearly state the requirements of the job.  It's up to the unit to match applicants to those requirements and ONLY forward those files that have a chance of being competetive.



I remember a certain DSS tasking message for overseas popping up previously. There was not much info on it, other than they required a certain number of Pte's to Sgts for a DSS tasking. The soldiers must be minimum DP1 qualified. That was, from what I remember, the gist of it.



> It could if only the desires of the member were being considerd.  However, the CoC also has to consider both the impact of the job on the member and the the greater needs of the unit.



The impact of the job on the member, what do you mean by this? What would you be looking out for?



> So, why can't this happen informally?  Have the Trg O call the EU and say, "i've got XXX here intersted in position "y".  Tell me a bit more about it before we nominate him."



That is a good point, but I havent seen it put in practice. I remember trying to get details from higher on certain taskings and not succeeding. Thats more of a CoC problem than a problem with the system.



> Hey, mods, my apologies for pursuing this tangent.  Can we split this of into a "Class B Selection Process" thread, please?



Indeed, this discussion no longer pertains to the topic. I do suppose that now, though, we are no longer talking about the system set in place, as I concede that the system can properly work. What we're debating is what constitutes a valid reason for the unit not passing up an employment application.


----------



## Haggis

Nero said:
			
		

> That is true. Maybe the better way would be for the unit to base their decisions solely the members performance at the unit and whether he deserves the position then.


 Wheter or not the member is deserving should be secondary to whether the member is suitable in all respects.



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> I remember a certain DSS tasking message for overseas popping up previously. There was not much info on it, other than they required a certain number of Pte's to Sgts for a DSS tasking. The soldiers must be minimum DP1 qualified. That was, from what I remember, the gist of it.


  I believe I remember that one. We called the EU and were able to get far more info on the position(s).  Tums out the EU was unaccustomed to drafting oportunity messages and didn't know exactly how much detail was required..



			
				Nero said:
			
		

> The impact of the job on the member, what do you mean by this? What would you be looking out for?



For example, a member wanted an out-of-province job to "gain valuable experience with unit X".   The reality is that he wanted this job in order to run away from a bad domestic situation rather than deal with it.  Results in a divorce and child custody issue for the member and he ends up getting terminated for cause from his Class B. The EU was so pissed at this adminiatrative burden they had been sent that they swore to NEVER accept a nomination from that unit again.  So, the waters were poisioned for future employment prospects.

A second example was a three year Class C offer from an east coast EU.  Sounded good, but when I dug deeper I found out the members would be employed out of environment, out of trade and would have no opporunity for training other than that exclusively required for the job (i.e. no PLQ, IPSW etc.)  What I would've received back in three years would be a member who was more sailor than soldier and who was three years behind his peers in the Infantry.

Lastly, a young soldier was sent on pre-deployment training by his unit.  Upon arrival in Petawawa, this kid didn't DAG RED, he DAGed CRIMSON!  When the unit (and brigade) were questioned on "WTF were you thinking in sending him?" the reply was "We knew he wasn't suitable but he wanted employment and threatened a redress if we didn't nominate him.  So, we did, knowing that you'd screen him out and our hands would be clean".  How do you think the reputation of that unit, that brigade and the Army Reserve in general fared after that debacle?

In short, the unit responsibility is to ensure thier members are gainfully and properly employed in Class A and B jobs, which are commensurate with thier expereince, qualifications and suitability.


----------



## Harris

Haggis,  I agree with all your points.  However I've been told by my last two CO's that They are told they had to pass ANY application for a Class B posn up the Chain, regardless of wether their recommendation supported or did not support the Soldier's request.  I was told "The EU will sort it out based on all of the CO's requests they receive".

I don't agree with this and tried to stop applications at my level (Coy Comd), but was to to make my recommendations and send them to the CO regardless.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Class B aren't the only Reserve element that were blindsided by this. After 5-6 pages discussing who is responsible for Cl B contracts and why people shouldn't get them, it's time to move on. Either that, or maybe Harris can cut all the Cl B clag out into its own thread.

I'd like to know what they are going to do to progress all the Cl A pers missing out on career courses because of this. I don't know about other trades, but the armoured guys are way behind the eight ball for CC, Ptl Cmdr and Tp WO courses. Can't get slots at the school and then when we do they keep changing dates and our guys can't switch vacations.

I think everyone should be promoted one level, acting lacking and then let the army accomodate them for a change. That being, the army will have to make a concerted effort to get these guys substantiated. After this last kick in the nuts to Cl A guys, it's the least they can do for them.


----------



## Spanky

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think everyone should be promoted one level, acting lacking and then let the army accomodate them for a change. That being, the army will have to make a concerted effort to get these guys substantiated. After this last kick in the nuts to Cl A guys, it's the least they can do for them.


Failing that, at least allow us to run more courses at the unit level so we can look after our own.  Allow us to run DP2 with DP3 CC complete.  We're expected to keep our troops motivated and trained as much as possible on 1/2 day a month, then let us pick-up the pieces afterwards.  I highly doubt that the powers that be will go out of their way to get our troops caught up, so let us do it ourselves.  We have a number of PLQ candidates that had their course cancelled once begun.  We put together a plan to work around it and sent it up, but with the holidays and block leave going on, we have yet to hear back.  I'm anticipating nothing but roadblocks.  Cynical, jaded, and bitter?  Yup.


----------



## dapaterson

Spanky said:
			
		

> Failing that, at least allow us to run more courses at the unit level so we can look after our own.  Allow us to run DP2 with DP3 CC complete.  We're expected to keep our troops motivated and trained as much as possible on 1/2 day a month, then let us pick-up the pieces afterwards.  I highly doubt that the powers that be will go out of their way to get our troops caught up, so let us do it ourselves.  We have a number of PLQ candidates that had their course cancelled once begun.  We put together a plan to work around it and sent it up, but with the holidays and block leave going on, we have yet to hear back.  I'm anticipating nothing but roadblocks.  Cynical, jaded, and bitter?  Yup.



The problems at the Armour school have traditionally been a lack of equipment and personnel - the CC course and toher senior courses are resource intensive to run properly, and the resources at the school force an annual decision: run a DP1 for officers or a DP3 for NCMs - not enough time or personnel for both.  

As for the PLQ:  I suspect the course will pick up where it left off early in the new fiscal year.  "Local" solutions won't cut it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The idea of having to go to the G spot for Mod 3 of a GWagon CC course is getting really old. The typical answer is 'We have to maintain the standard'. Horsehockey. Every Reserve unit is more than capable of maintaining the standard, in situ, with unit resources. Is CTC telling us that all those RSS Staff at Reserve units are not capable of maintaining the standard? If not, what are they doing at those Reserve units when their job is to mentor? It's a heck of a lot easier to send someone from CTC, to a unit, for two days to ensure the standard is being maintained than it is to force Reservists from all over the country to stop drop on a moments notice and go to Gagetown because they switched dates again.

The rumour that it is nothing more than a money grab from the Reserves enabling the school to stockpile resources for the Reg force courses gains more credence everytime they revamp the course and make it harder for Reservist to attend.

I think these courses should be done at unit level and let CTC have that extra time to run more Reg force courses.


----------



## Haggis

recceguy said:
			
		

> Class B aren't the only Reserve element that were blindsided by this. After 5-6 pages discussing who is responsible for Cl B contracts and why people shouldn't get them, it's time to move on. Either that, or maybe Harris can cut all the Cl B clag out into its own thread.



That's what I suggested at reply no. 196.


----------



## Spanky

recceguy said:
			
		

> The idea of having to go to the G spot for Mod 3 of a GWagon CC course is getting really old. The typical answer is 'We have to maintain the standard'. Horsehockey. Every Reserve unit is more than capable of maintaining the standard, in situ, with unit resources. Is CTC telling us that all those RSS Staff at Reserve units are not capable of maintaining the standard? If not, what are they doing at those Reserve units when their job is to mentor? It's a heck of a lot easier to send someone from CTC, to a unit, for two days to ensure the standard is being maintained than it is to force Reservists from all over the country to stop drop on a moments notice and go to Gagetown because they switched dates again.
> 
> The rumour that it is nothing more than a money grab from the Reserves enabling the school to stockpile resources
> for the Reg force courses gains more credence everytime they revamp the course and make it harder for Reservist to attend.
> 
> I think these courses should be done at unit level and let CTC have that extra time to run more Reg force courses.



At the risk of taking the intent of this thread off the tracks again, I have to agree.  There is no reason why all three mods of this crse could not be handled locally.

As for local solutions not "cutting it".  I agree that that is the perception and probable response of higher.  I disagree that local solutions to problems won't work.


----------



## vonGarvin

recceguy said:
			
		

> The idea of having to go to the G spot for Mod 3 of a GWagon CC course is getting really old. The typical answer is 'We have to maintain the standard'. Horsehockey. Every Reserve unit is more than capable of maintaining the standard, in situ, with unit resources. Is CTC telling us that all those RSS Staff at Reserve units are not capable of maintaining the standard? If not, what are they doing at those Reserve units when their job is to mentor? It's a heck of a lot easier to send someone from CTC, to a unit, for two days to ensure the standard is being maintained than it is to force Reservists from all over the country to stop drop on a moments notice and go to Gagetown because they switched dates again.


I can only comment on this from the point of view of the School of Cool, the Infantry School.  Standards is an organisation at the school, separate from the training companies, and part of its job is to ensure that the standard is being met (eg: TP and QS adhered to in every respect, and so forth).  Reg Force line units don't have standards organisations, so to ask the RSS to do this task is beyond their capability.  As the Devil's advocate, do RSS dudes learn about QS, TP, IT, etc?  Heck, some instructors find all that stuff "fuzzy", but their role as mentor one could liken more to an instructor.

For one person to visit every unit as they conduct training to ensure standards are met would take more than two days.  Recently, staff from the School of Cool spent a week with 2 or 3 VP as they did a sniper course.  One week.  Prior to that was some training in Petawawa.  Trust me, they would have to be there to oversee the indoc training and so forth.  (As for monitoring instructors, that is not the job of standards: that's a chain of command responsibility, just in case anyone was wondering.)

As for the date changes, I concur: they are a function of many competing factors, but they still suck.   But from this end, and with Infantry units in particular (both reg and reserve), sometimes it's like pulling teeth to get commitments on time, but that's another story for another thread.

So, in short, for a career course (3A, etc), not only would potential Crew Commanders benefit from getting instruction right at the Centre of Excellence, but this is also a course, for all its warts, bumps and bruises, where these candidates get to go back to their units and expand their horizons, as it were.  They get the latest and greatest, as well as to develop professional relationships with peers from across the nation, and that's important, no?


Anyway, just my $0.02


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I can only comment on this from the point of view of the School of Cool, the Infantry School.  Standards is an organisation at the school, separate from the training companies, and part of its job is to ensure that the standard is being met (eg: TP and QS adhered to in every respect, and so forth).  Reg Force line units don't have standards organisations, so to ask the RSS to do this task is beyond their capability.  As the Devil's advocate, do RSS dudes learn about QS, TP, IT, etc?  Heck, some instructors find all that stuff "fuzzy", but their role as mentor one could liken more to an instructor.
> 
> Lots of our Reserve instructor have their Instructor indoc training from the Battle School already.
> 
> For one person to visit every unit as they conduct training to ensure standards are met would take more than two days.  Recently, staff from the School of Cool spent a week with 2 or 3 VP as they did a sniper course.  One week.  Prior to that was some training in Petawawa.  Trust me, they would have to be there to oversee the indoc training and so forth.  (As for monitoring instructors, that is not the job of standards: that's a chain of command responsibility, just in case anyone was wondering.)
> 
> Sorry. I helped instruct on a Reserve CC course, out west, that they let run decentralized from the School. Standards from the school was there for two days at the beginning and came for the final course debrief. That was it.
> 
> As for the date changes, I concur: they are a function of many competing factors, but they still suck.   But from this end, and with Infantry units in particular (both reg and reserve), sometimes it's like pulling teeth to get commitments on time, but that's another story for another thread.
> 
> So, in short, for a career course (3A, etc), not only would potential Crew Commanders benefit from getting instruction right at the Centre of Excellence, but this is also a course, for all its warts, bumps and bruises, where these candidates get to go back to their units and expand their horizons, as it were.  They get the latest and greatest, as well as to develop professional relationships with peers from across the nation, and that's important, no?
> 
> There is no latest and greatest as far as GWagon CC is concerned. It's really no different that we did with the Iltis. Some fancier names for stuff is all (Someone got their 'Leading Change' bubble filled :
> 
> 
> Anyway, just my $0.02


 Reserve Gwagon Crew Commander is not rocket science. We don't need the school to do the course. If that were the case, we'd be doing the Patrol Commander course at the school also. Guess what? That's a local run course


----------



## vonGarvin

recceguy said:
			
		

> Reserve Gwagon Crew Commander is not rocket science. We don't need the school to do the course. If that were the case, we'd be doing the Patrol Commander course at the school also. Guess what? That's a local run course


I'm not arguing that it is rocket science.  I think (guessing here), that the Patrol Commander is not a career course (eg: 3A or 3B).

But, anyway, just throwing in perspective from "the other end of the hall" as it were.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing that it is rocket science.  I think (guessing here), that the Patrol Commander is not a career course (eg: 3A or 3B).
> 
> But, anyway, just throwing in perspective from "the other end of the hall" as it were.



Patrol Commander is a career course. It's the requirement for Sgt.


----------



## vonGarvin

recceguy said:
			
		

> Patrol Commander is a career course. It's the requirement for Sgt.


Seen.  Now, is there scope in the armour reserve to conduct the courses in an Area School?  Or do the numbers suggest that they could be done at the unit level?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

There is a precident to run some decentralized courses. CFSME let 56 ES run MOD 1 of the Section Member Course at the unit level in the spring of 2008 (IIRC), they also let 31 CER run the QL6B Part 1 RECCE OPS course last year and it looks like 39 CER (44 FES TRAIL) will be running the QL6A SECTION COMMANDER Course this year.


----------



## Spanky

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Seen.  Now, is there scope in the armour reserve to conduct the courses in an Area School?  Or do the numbers suggest that they could be done at the unit level?


The numbers vary from year to year.  In the past couple of years we have run DP2, DP3 (CC Crse) Mods 1 and 2 and DP 3 (Ptl Ldr) crses with the other armd unit in 31 Bde.  That has allowed us to pool resources, staff, and candidates. 
As it stand right now, our unit's recruiting has been very effective and we have enough candidates to run our own DP2.  With the increase in MCPL in the past year or so, we have the critical mass required to run a unit DP3 crse.   Right now we have upwards of a dozen MCPL who cannot practice their trade as they do not have a CC Crse.


----------



## greentoblue

Some more numbers released out of Ottawa today that I haven't seen anywhere else.  I am sure that it is no coincidence that the numbers were released during the first working day of Boxing Week  :

Quote: "Military seeks $190M in cuts ... The air force is required to cut $59 million while the navy has $52 million in reductions to make, according to the Canadian Forces. It was recently revealed that the army's portion of the reduction is $80 million."

http://news.globaltv.com/world/story.html?id=2385473


----------



## McG

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> ....  they also let 31 CER run the QL6B Part 1 RECCE OPS course last year and it looks like 39 CER (44 FES TRAIL) will be running the QL6A SECTION COMMANDER Course this year.


Except, those examples are not unit courses.  They were/are "export" courses and appear on the national calendar for CFSME.  There is still a fair amount of work required from CFSME (not just Standards Sqn), and the students & instructors come from wider than just the host unit.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

IIRC the Recce Ops course, the staff all came from 31 CER. The school just ensured that all the necessary info minus PC's where avail on documentum.



EDITED TO ADD

Understood that they where exported courses, only examples I could really find that would fit the questions above.


----------



## CountDC

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's expected if such approval is granted that the member will parade _at least_ as often as his average Class A counterpart, particularly if his EU is granting "CTO".



If giving CTO then yes they would be expected to parade.  I would have the supervisor at the unit send me an email every week confirming the member paraded.  if he didn't parade then he better be at work.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> About three years ago, I was involved with three young Class B troops who had been granted this permission by the EU and were also granted (and took) regular "CTO" even though they rarely paraded with the parent unit.



the term AWOL comes to mind.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> I've been involved in a couple of redresses of this nature in the past year, from a policy interpretation perspective.  The parent unit CO is _not obliged _ to reccommend any member for Class B employment and there are many many reasons why a CO would not do so (member is not a good "fit", is a disciplinary/admin burden, fails to meet prerequisiites, or the job may set the member up for failure, just to name a few).
> 
> The ultimate decision to hire a member on Class B rests with the EU, but the EU cannot hire a member without CO/chain of command concurrence.



agree the CO is not obliged to recommend nor did I at any point indicate he was.  He was not allowed to refuse to forward the members application for an advertised class b, he could only add his comments that the member was not recommended and why.

In the past there were many cases where the CO did not recommend or agree to the member being hired on cl b but the EU hired the member anyway.  Have they brought something out to prevent this?


----------



## CountDC

Haggis said:
			
		

> And allow a mere staff officer in the EU to second guess a Commanding Officer?  You're kidding, right?  Would you apply the same logic to a member who is screened out of a tour, JTF 2, CSOR or a CT by the unit, PSO, doctors, PSP?  Should the mounting unit, JTF 2 or CSOR have the (in your opinion) *right* to challenge the selection process results?
> 
> Seems to me that you have little faith in the CoC's ability to manage it's members and their employment.



umm sometimes that "mere staff officer" is an ex CO.  For example where I am at now we are looking for a 3 year Cl B,  The Staff Officer that will have final say is a LCdr who was also a CO in the past.

as for faith in the CoC - there were cases that the CoC tried to prevent members from being employed by other units.  Sometimes it was because the member was the only clerk at the unit and they didn't want to lose them.  Sometimes it was because the member was not a fit at the unit because they did not kiss a$$.  Then sometimes members came with glowing reports from the CoC only to prove to be a dud the unit wanted to pawn off on someone else. I have lot's of faith in the CoC's ability to manage it's members and their employment to the benefit of the unit only. From talking to someone that just did RSS at a unit there are still too many cases of the "old boys" network out there.


----------



## Haggis

CountDC said:
			
		

> If giving CTO then yes they would be expected to parade.  I would have the supervisor at the unit send me an email every week confirming the member paraded.  if he didn't parade then he better be at work.



At the outset, the EU and parent unit didn't communicate very well.  Once this was discoverd, the communication went quite well along the line you describe.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> the term AWOL comes to mind.


Having gone down the "charging a Class B with AWOL" road several times (with several JAGs) it's pretty well impossible in all but the most blatant cases.  Try it sometimes and if you actually get one through to a conviction, give me the name of your JAG.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> agree the CO is not obliged to recommend nor did I at any point indicate he was.  He was not allowed to refuse to forward the members application for an advertised class b, he could only add his comments that the member was not recommended and why.


  I've never seen that direction anywhere and it isn't mentioned at all in Mil Pers Instr 20-04 or A-PM-245 chapter 19.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> In the past there were many cases where the CO did not recommend or agree to the member being hired on cl b but the EU hired the member anyway.


 And how could the EU hire without chain of command concurrence?  Obviously there's a bit more to this scenario.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> umm sometimes that "mere staff officer" is an ex CO.  For example where I am at now we are looking for a 3 year Cl B,  The Staff Officer that will have final say is a LCdr who was also a CO in the past.


 But he's not a CO any longer and shoiuld know better than to overrule his peers.  How would he have liked it if it had been done to him?



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> as for faith in the CoC - there were cases that the CoC tried to prevent members from being employed by other units.  Sometimes it was because the member was the only clerk at the unit and they didn't want to lose them.


  There's the CO looking out for the best intersts of his unit.  Go figure.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Then sometimes members came with glowing reports from the CoC only to prove to be a dud the unit wanted to pawn off on someone else.


 That one I blame squarely on the CO.  Exporting the problem doesn't fix the problem, particularly when the member gets fired from his Class B and ends up back on the parent unit doorstep as even more of an administrative burden.  But, hey, the Reg F does it too.  How many "duds" have been dumped on Reserve units as RSS?


----------



## Otts

Im in a Reserve infantry unit, and we've had to cancel some upcoming field-exs, and stay on stand down a few extra weeks. Pretty much no new recruits either, which is expected.
We had a BMQ, BMQ (co-op with high schools), DP2A, and PLQ cancelled on top of that though


----------



## CountDC

Haggis said:
			
		

> Having gone down the "charging a Class B with AWOL" road several times (with several JAGs) it's pretty well impossible in all but the most blatant cases.  Try it sometimes and if you actually get one through to a conviction, give me the name of your JAG.


The times have changed - it was done some time around 98 by summary trial. Member was consistently late for work.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> I've never seen that direction anywhere and it isn't mentioned at all in Mil Pers Instr 20-04 or A-PM-245 chapter 19.
> And how could the EU hire without chain of command concurrence?  Obviously there's a bit more to this scenario.


It was commonly done in the 80's and 90's. Unit concurrence was not even asked for.  The member applied for the position and the EU hired them. In some cases such as mine in 89 the member was contacted directly by the EU due to a recommendation from someone at the EU and asked if they wanted the job (the old boy network). Competitions, advertising, etc were not required.  As for the direction - it was something that was passed down from the area HQ at the time, it may have even been an area policy.   I originally asked if it is something that is still being done.  By the different answers here it is obvious that some places are still doing it while others do not.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> But he's not a CO any longer and shoiuld know better than to overrule his peers.  How would he have liked it if it had been done to him?


Overrule his peers and higher ranking officers at the subunits is a big part of his current job (with the CoS backing).  He didn't and still doesn't like it done to him but as he says - it is all part of the job. 



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> There's the CO looking out for the best intersts of his unit.  Go figure.


Which is fine if it does not adversely affect the member without valid reason.  To say I do not want my clerk to be hired class b because I have not recruited anyone to replace him/her is not good.  You are trying to keep this person on Class A at the unit while they are looking for Class B employment.  Don't know about now but the clerks I knew that the unit tried this with simply transferred to the EU or supp res and took the job anyway.  The unit then had the problem of trying to find a clerk.  Not easy to do when you have a rep in the clerk world of being a bad unit to work at. From what I hear it is still easy for clerks to jump around on class B's.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> That one I blame squarely on the CO.  Exporting the problem doesn't fix the problem, particularly when the member gets fired from his Class B and ends up back on the parent unit doorstep as even more of an administrative burden.  But, hey, the Reg F does it too.  How many "duds" have been dumped on Reserve units as RSS?


Ahh - but in the reg f case it is not a CO recommending the member for employment and saying they are great.  It is a career manager filling all the holes they can with the people they have.   In the Reg F the sell job is usually to give a great PER so the member will be promoted and posted out (hopefully to RSS)   ;D  OK - it is the same thing with a different route.  

Admin burdens are what the C&P process is there for.  If the member is one then I am all for getting rid of them with due process.  Follow all the steps (really not that much additional work) and show the member the door. I was involved in the process for a dud sent to us from the brigade HQ, have seen numerous cases in the reg f (just PA'd a few) and even put the final nail in the coffin for a civilian I was supervising one day (don't ever tell me to get out of my orderly room while talking like a sailor  :rage: ).  Not a fast process but it does work.

So - it appears there is still no set firm rule in force out there for all reserves.

wonder if the mods are going to separate this thread.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Wow, this thread brings back a lot of memories.  Good times.

For those still wondering about the local impact, MCG identified it early: each level of command sets different priorities as to what is cut and what is preserved.


----------



## vonGarvin

For what it's worth, as a class B reservist in 1989, I was charged with, and convicted of, AWOL  :'(

(I was 3 hours late getting back to Borden, due to a late train, and I'm still bitter)


----------



## Spanky

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, as a class B reservist in 1989, I was charged with, and convicted of, AWOL  :'(
> 
> (I was 3 hours late getting back to Borden, due to a late train, and I'm still bitter)


It's been 20 years, it's time to let it go.  You've got to stop letting the past hold you back. You've got to get beyond it.  We're all here to help.  Let it go.


----------



## dapaterson

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, as a class B reservist in 1989, I was charged with, and convicted of, AWOL  :'(
> 
> (I was 3 hours late *getting back to Borden*, due to a late train, and I'm still bitter)



Anyone who spends time in Borden gets what they deserve.  _N'est pas, Vern?_


----------



## armyvern

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Anyone who spends time in Borden gets what they deserve.  _N'est pas, Vern?_



Bien _ouin_ monsieur; ça pourrai être pire - je pourrai être à Ottawa a rien faire avec toi.


----------



## CountDC

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Anyone who spends time in Borden gets what they deserve.  _N'est pas, Vern?_



Thank you - I have always had a good time there, met some great people, had a "few" wets, toured the golf course....

oh yeah, completed some courses in there too.


----------



## Remius

Well, I think most reserve units are going to have to plan for the fallout of all this.

*Courses being cancelled:*  Units might and will lose candidates.  Given the uncertainty and people's schedules.  Worse is the instructors who may not be able to commit to a new schedule which may lead to courses not being able to start back up.

*Training being cancelled:* Troops are probably going to look for other sources of income or commit more time to their other employers.  If and when units stand up again it may be difficult for some of these guys to commit the way they were prior to the stand down. 

*Class B terminations:*  Loss of people.  People on Class B within the army either are moving to civilian side, class Bs outside the army or are putting in for CT.  This leaves most units with less manpower and the Army has less of a pool of potential instructors, leaders etc for its tasks.  I know how Class Bs can't be posted but they could be tasked for months if need be outside their normal workplace.  This will affect summer training, area concentrations are especially the G8/G20.  And even if they create new class Bs in the next fiscal year, who's going to trust the army to honour those contracts?

My belief, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that although they are making fiscal arrangements and re-allocating funds but no one seems to be creating any type of damage control processes to limit the impact.


----------



## George Wallace

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well, I think most reserve units are going to have to plan for the fallout of all this.
> 
> *Courses being cancelled:*
> 
> *Training being cancelled:*
> 
> *Class B terminations:*
> 
> My belief, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that although they are making fiscal arrangements and re-allocating funds but no one seems to be creating any type of damage control processes to limit the impact.



Most of your points are valid, and people are working on solutions.   Don't think that CO's and their staffs are not brainstorming over this and trying to come up with solutions that could mitigate some of the foreseeable consequences.


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Most of your points are valid, and people are working on solutions.   Don't think that CO's and their staffs are not brainstorming over this and trying to come up with solutions that could mitigate some of the foreseeable consequences.



Alternatively, the Army, knowing Afghanistan is winding down and faced with looming budget pressures, is trying to hollow out the Reserves to permit it to redirect that funding elsewhere.

At least as logical a hypothesis as any other...


----------



## Old Sweat

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Alternatively, the Army, knowing Afghanistan is winding down and faced with looming budget pressures, is trying to hollow out the Reserves to permit it to redirect that funding elsewhere.
> 
> At least as logical a hypothesis as any other...



Tinfoil a little tight these days? Besides you credit the army staff with being able to conceive a fiendishly clever plot. More likely they are reacting to a foreseeable situation that snuck up on them.


----------



## old fart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Alternatively, the Army, knowing Afghanistan is winding down and faced with looming budget pressures, is trying to hollow out the Reserves to permit it to redirect that funding elsewhere.
> 
> At least as logical a hypothesis as any other...



If such a move is necessary....it has my vote....


----------



## Journeyman

old fart said:
			
		

> If such a move is necessary....it has my vote....


How does one define "necessary"? 

If it's to flesh out yet another headquarters, perhaps so a MGen can be employed organizing Nijmegen marches, I'd just as soon keep a viable Reserve thanks.


----------



## Haggis

old fart said:
			
		

> If such a move is necessary....it has my vote....



Yeah....better a "hollow Reserve" than a "hollow Regular Force".  It's so much easier to build a Reserve from, well, nothing, right when you need it the most.   :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

old fart said:
			
		

> If such a move is necessary....it has my vote....



 :rofl:

Here we go.

Don't hate, k?


----------



## Dissident

old fart said:
			
		

> If such a move is necessary....it has my vote....



If this is not trolling, I don't know what is.


----------



## old fart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How does one define "necessary"?
> 
> If it's to flesh out yet another headquarters, perhaps so a MGen can be employed organizing Nijmegen marches, I'd just as soon keep a viable Reserve thanks.




Monies to the sharp end and reg force training systems (coupled with an easier way of punting the waste of rations making a career out of basic training and whom it is almost impossible to get rid of; the savings getting rid of training dead weight gave me a certain satisfaction....but not frequently enough).....

Also, the size of the tail on deployed ops also never fails to amaze me.....although I like creature comports as much as the next person.....I have been around long enough to know that the size of the rear ech on deployed ops is now bloated beyond belief.....and at what cost.....A massive one for sure.

The few times I was in KAF unfortunately coincided with ramp ceremonies and seeing the almost couple of thousand (swag must be close) of CF pers on the tarmac, each time I was left wondering how many of folks were actually down range; not even factoring HLTA/VTA.

The reg force house is far from perfect.....but I don't see things changing, monies spent on the reserves are monies better used by the regulars (army of course  )


----------



## Dissident

What kind of non sequitur argument is this?

Because there is a bloated log tail in Kaf, the reserve are not worth the money they get?

And here we go on the reg/res debate again. It doesn't surprise me though, as resources become scarce, people will be fighting tooth and nail for their empires.


----------



## vonGarvin

old fart said:
			
		

> Also, the size of the tail on deployed ops also never fails to amaze me.....although I like creature comports as much as the next person.....I have been around long enough to know that the size of the rear ech on deployed ops is now bloated beyond belief.....and at what cost.....A massive one for sure.
> 
> The few times I was in KAF unfortunately coincided with ramp ceremonies and seeing the almost couple of thousand (swag must be close) of CF pers on the tarmac, each time I was left wondering how many of folks were actually down range


Logistics and HQs, that's what is in KAF.  They may not be efficient, that I'll admit.  But just because someone isn't "down range" doesn't make their job any less vital.  Also, such "creature" comforts they provide include such things as food, water, ammunition, medical supplies, post services, welfare services, etc.

According to the news and press releases that are pretty well everywhere, there are close to 3000 military members in Kandahar.  

What this has to do with Army Budget (Force Generator) vice deployed force (CEFCOM, or Force Employer) is beyond me.


----------



## dapaterson

old fart said:
			
		

> Monies to the sharp end and reg force training systems (coupled with an easier way of punting the waste of rations making a career out of basic training and whom it is almost impossible to get rid of; the savings getting rid of training dead weight gave me a certain satisfaction....but not frequently enough).....
> 
> Also, the size of the tail on deployed ops also never fails to amaze me.....although I like creature comports as much as the next person.....I have been around long enough to know that the size of the rear ech on deployed ops is now bloated beyond belief.....and at what cost.....A massive one for sure.
> 
> The few times I was in KAF unfortunately coincided with ramp ceremonies and seeing the almost couple of thousand (swag must be close) of CF pers on the tarmac, each time I was left wondering how many of folks were actually down range; not even factoring HLTA/VTA.
> 
> The reg force house is far from perfect.....but I don't see things changing, monies spent on the reserves are monies better used by the regulars (army of course  )



Army - Reg F - about 50% are garrison personnel.  Not field units.  The structure is designed and maintained by the Reg F.

Deployed structures - bloated (to be sure).  Designed and maintained by the same Reg F.

Training system.  Designed and maintained by... but you get the picture.


Are there some issues in the Res F that requrie optimization?  Yes.  No doubt.  But with the Army spending over $1B per year on Reg F pay that's a significant place to start looking for savings - but it's sacrosanct, so instead we are imposing significant cuts to the Reserve Force and Reserve units which have successfully force-generated for operations when requested to do so.

Given the Reg F's inability to maintain a viable structure for itself (did you know that until recently each LFA was permitted to steal positions from their units, resulting in the nine Reg F infantry Bns all being different?), inability to maintain a coherent equipment plan, inability to plan its personnel requirements... yiou'll forgive me if I'd prefer they not muck about too much with the Reserves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

old fart said:
			
		

> Monies to the sharp end and reg force training systems (coupled with an easier way of punting the waste of rations making a career out of basic training and whom it is almost impossible to get rid of; the savings getting rid of training dead weight gave me a certain satisfaction....but not frequently enough).....
> 
> Also, the size of the tail on deployed ops also never fails to amaze me.....although I like creature comports as much as the next person.....I have been around long enough to know that the size of the rear ech on deployed ops is now bloated beyond belief.....and at what cost.....A massive one for sure.
> 
> The few times I was in KAF unfortunately coincided with ramp ceremonies and seeing the almost couple of thousand (swag must be close) of CF pers on the tarmac, each time I was left wondering how many of folks were actually down range; not even factoring HLTA/VTA.
> 
> The reg force house is far from perfect.....but I don't see things changing, monies spent on the reserves are monies better used by the regulars (army of course  )



There will always be dyed in the wool, short sighted careerists that can't see past the empire building sacred teet that they've been milking for most of their adult life. To them the Reservists that stepped up and filled those spots, that the Regs couldn't, on the pointy end in Afghanistan, are still nothing more than a waste of skin to be tossed to the wolves. All they percieve with all the cuts, is a threat to their personal kingdom, that must be preserved at all costs so the stink doesn't touch them.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> There will always be dyed in the wool, short sighted careerists that can't see past the empire building sacred teet that they've been milking for most of their adult life. To them the Reservists that stepped up and filled those spots, that the Regs couldn't, on the pointy end in Afghanistan, are still nothing more than a waste of skin to be tossed to the wolves. All they percieve with all the cuts, is a threat to their personal kingdom, that must be preserved at all costs so the stink doesn't touch them.



[rant]
These careerists, who can affect these kinds of decisions, are in high places.  They are comparable to the NORTEL Executives, CEOs, etc. who still managed to garner severance pay/options/etc. while the workers lost their jobs and pensions.  They are in positions, where they will face minimal to no changes to their careers, and will walk into some civvie company on retirement as a Executive Officer.  These changes have no consequence to their futures.  One may even say that they 'don't care'.  

[/rant]

 :-\


----------



## R031button

One wonders how much money could be saved in the reserves by looking at the 50 odd CO's and RSM's of Reserve Infantry Regiments, many full time, compared to the amount of troops they "command." I know of one such unit in BC that parades a platoon minus, has a full time Lt Col and Adj, as well as an RSM that is paid to drive in and spend three days in a hotel every week. Yet no exercises until March?


----------



## old fart

R031button said:
			
		

> One wonders how much money could be saved in the reserves by looking at the 50 odd CO's and RSM's of Reserve Infantry Regiments, many full time, compared to the amount of troops they "command." I know of one such unit in BC that parades a platoon minus, has a full time Lt Col and Adj, as well as an RSM that is paid to drive in and spend three days in a hotel every week. Yet no exercises until March?



Unfortunately, the Comd LFWA, CLS, Army Council, the CDS and the Minister appear to be quite happy with instances such as that (lets assume your statement is 100% factual).

Did we not try to fix that rationalizing the reserves....seems there is still work to be done....on the reg force side of the fence also, and the way we do business.

PS...is the CO a Class B?


----------



## R031button

I believe the fix, ie: the tactical grouping of units, was discussed, but I don't know of it being implemented anywhere in 39 Brigade. I believe it was implemented within 38 CBG, with the Sask Inf regiments sharing a HQ, as with the two regiments in Winnipeg doing the same.  I guess at the end of the day senior officers are very reluctant to axe other senior officers.


Yes he is


----------



## Larkvall

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Alternatively, the Army, knowing Afghanistan is winding down and faced with looming budget pressures, is trying to hollow out the Reserves to permit it to redirect that funding elsewhere.
> 
> At least as logical a hypothesis as any other...



I don't think that makes sense. Some people had their courses cancelled while they were half way through. This had to be some sort of emergency. No?


----------



## Spanky

R031button said:
			
		

> One wonders how much money could be saved in the reserves by looking at the 50 odd CO's and RSM's of Reserve Infantry Regiments, many full time, compared to the amount of troops they "command." I know of one such unit in BC that parades a platoon minus, has a full time Lt Col and Adj, as well as an RSM that is paid to drive in and spend three days in a hotel every week. Yet no exercises until March?


Let's not haul out that tired old argument shall we?  It's been beaten to death in other old threads.  Abuses in some units.... of course.  Leaders making sacrifices and parading without pay so that their troops are taken care of also occurs.


----------



## R031button

No offense but I think the "parading without pay" was pointed out as being prohibited for quite some time several pages ago. I wasn't bringing up "tired old arguments" I had heard from years ago, those are my experiences in the last year, and they are not uncommon. The simple fact is there are precious few reserve units that can warrant a full battalion staff when a company HQ (albeit with some expanded clerk / stores assets) will do.  Also, and again I don't mean to offend or step out of bounds here, but I'd be interested to know, with 29 years in, what position you hold in your unit.  :warstory:


----------



## McG

R031button said:
			
		

> The simple fact is there are precious few reserve units that can warrant a full battalion staff when a company HQ (albeit with some expanded clerk / stores assets) will do.


I don't think the unit level HQs can be cut as a cost saving measure.  I expect that most to all of such savings would have to be invested right back into the amalgamated Bn HQs in order to make it work.  Either way, you can pick-up on the amalgamation discussion here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24381/post-1170#msg1170


----------



## R031button

I would argue you could probably pull a Bn HQ out of a dissolved Bde HQ, of a Bde's worth of Bn HQ's. However, noted, changing lanes.


----------



## George Wallace

R031button said:
			
		

> I would argue you could probably pull a Bn HQ out of a dissolved Bde HQ, of a Bde's worth of Bn HQ's. However, noted, changing lanes.



I think you missed the point.  Clerks and QM staff do what they are told.  They do not make decisions.  You need and officer and NCO in Ops and Training, an Admin O or Adjutant, etc. in positions to make decisions, produce training plans and materials, Course load pers, etc.  The clerks and QM staff don't make these decisions.  Instead, they take direction from these people to make things happen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

R031button said:
			
		

> No offense but I think the "parading without pay" was pointed out as being prohibited for quite some time several pages ago. I wasn't bringing up "tired old arguments" I had heard from years ago, those are my experiences in the last year, and they are not uncommon. The simple fact is there are precious few reserve units that can warrant a full battalion staff when a company HQ (albeit with some expanded clerk / stores assets) will do.  Also, and again I don't mean to offend or step out of bounds here, but I'd be interested to know, with 29 years in, what position you hold in your unit.   :warstory:



He's my Class A Sqn Ops WO, and a damn good one too. What's your point?


----------



## Jarnhamar

old fart said:
			
		

> The few times I was in KAF unfortunately coincided with ramp ceremonies and seeing the almost couple of thousand (swag must be close) of CF pers on the tarmac, each time I was left wondering how many of folks were actually down range; not even factoring HLTA/VTA.




Were you one of those guys who never stopped bitching about KAF (all the creature comforts, all the facilities, how DARE they get paid the same danger pay?!)  and the minute YOU'RE on KAF all you do is bitch about how bad you want to go back to the FOBs and how much KAF sucks -  while waiting in line at tim hortons & making sure EVERYONE around you at Canada House knew you were out of the FOBs?
I think I bumped into you!



			
				old fart said:
			
		

> The reg force house is far from perfect.....but I don't see things changing, monies spent on the reserves are monies better used by the regulars (army of course  )



Yup. Only your LAV crews me be a little light on the ground. You'll need a platoon or two from somewhere for escort duties.  Not to mention truckers bringing supplies out to the FOBs, clerks handling the "I only have 4 hours PLEASE you have to help me" requests, medics, security tasks.
We have plenty reg force to cove all of that plus more-not to worry.




			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> There will always be dyed in the wool, short sighted careerists that can't see past the empire building sacred teet that they've been milking for most of their adult life. To them the Reservists that stepped up and filled those spots, that the Regs couldn't, on the pointy end in Afghanistan, are still nothing more than a waste of skin to be tossed to the wolves. All they percieve with all the cuts, is a threat to their personal kingdom, that must be preserved at all costs so the stink doesn't touch them.



Well said Recceguy thank you.


----------



## Loachman

There would have been a bunch more Taliban digging nasty things into certain roads often travelled by Regular Force people, and a few more of those ramp ceremonies, were it not for a bunch of Reservists (including a handful of Evil Double-Dippers) operating, maintaining, and supporting Sperwer as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The whole "Just a reservist" attitude is sadly still alive and will continue until said  guilty parties (dare I say mentors) stop treating reservists like the ugly girl at the bar come 3 am.


----------



## corp_express

Just like to say to all you CT promoters.... I started this post...  and everyone smirked and said well son time to CT...  join the Reg F and be areal man...   "insert heavy nut sack here"

My CT came back,    Infantry NCM is closed... my options were to decline, or apply for something else.  "the option to wait until it opens was not provided..."

I am a junior leader who served overseas as a junior leader "within the last year"...

Getting crapped on by the army is a lot of fun.
The point I'm trying to make here is...  we're all failling to acknowledge that the Army, if not the CF is in fact headed down a dark trail.

I had a small part in the massive push for Recruiting...  to look back now...  and see all that work "and money" pissed away. .... ....   Well  I can say that my jaw has dropped.


----------



## Jarnhamar

corp_express said:
			
		

> Just like to say to all you CT promoters.... I started this post...  and everyone smirked and said well son time to CT...  join the Reg F and be areal man...   "insert heavy nut sack here"
> 
> My CT came back,    Infantry NCM is closed... my options were to decline, or apply for something else.  "the option to wait until it opens was not provided..."
> 
> I am a junior leader who served overseas as a junior leader "within the last year"...
> 
> Getting crapped on by the army is a lot of fun.
> The point I'm trying to make here is...  we're all failling to acknowledge that the Army, if not the CF is in fact headed down a dark trail.
> 
> I had a small part in the massive push for Recruiting...  to look back now...  and see all that work "and money" pissed away. .... ....   Well  I can say that my jaw has dropped.



I'm surprised the Infantry didn't keep the back door open for reservists who are CTing to the same trade who have PLQ and specially tour experience- doubly so for someone who was a junior leader overseas.

ith the lack of instructors we keep hearing about it seems wasteful.


----------



## dapaterson

We recruited too many Reg F infantry - so we have lots of Reg F ptes (some trained, some untrained) leaving no space within the Inf PY pool to bring in more.

Indeed, we brought in so many that other recruiting suffers - there's a limit to the funding that can be used for Reg F pay - so too many of one trade means we can't bring in enough of another.


----------



## Spanky

R031button said:
			
		

> No offense but I think the "parading without pay" was pointed out as being prohibited for quite some time several pages ago. I wasn't bringing up "tired old arguments" I had heard from years ago, those are my experiences in the last year, and they are not uncommon. The simple fact is there are precious few reserve units that can warrant a full battalion staff when a company HQ (albeit with some expanded clerk / stores assets) will do.  Also, and again I don't mean to offend or step out of bounds here, but I'd be interested to know, with 29 years in, what position you hold in your unit.  :warstory:


Where do I begin?  You are right, parading without pay has been prohibited for quite some time.  I'm sure there are policies that would deal with Class B COs as well.  I'm not going to get into a urinating competition with you over this.  You pointed out some "breaches" in order to make the reservist leadership seem to appear like a bunch of free loading sponges.  I countered by pointing out that there are "breaches" that make reserve leadership look like a bunch of honourable leaders with the best interests of their men as a priority.  I know which group I have more respect for.  
I'm sure the same can be said for reg force leadership.  
As far as my position in my regiment goes?  Totally irrelevant and what is your point?


----------



## corp_express

I understand the situation... 

I take issue with the fact that my CT process cannot be put on hold pending the trade reopening...  I had to choose "no" or Navy Sonar tech...   

It seems silly to me that, the army would rather, close my file and when the trade re-opens, recruit someone off the street and subsequently be forced to pay for training them from scratch. When they could have left my file in a cabinet... and when the trade re-opens have someone come in who is qualified and knows his way around.

Now I have to wait 6 months, to re-apply and then wait another 3-5 months for them to decide my fate. All the while, I will most definately be seeking alternate forms of employment.

Again...   this thread is dedicated to flinching bad management within the Army... Since they were able to tell me that the trade will most likely re-open at the end of the fiscal year, I feel the notion that the Army is full is a blatant lie.

We just have too much on our plate,  TFK, Op Podium and the G-8 Summit to name a few...


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> The whole "Just a reservist" attitude is sadly still alive and will continue until said  guilty parties (dare I say mentors) stop treating reservists like the ugly girl at the bar come 3 am.



I agree with this comment.   Having just recently transferred from the Reg Force and the Reserves, I am amazed at some of the comments and remarks that folks make when the realize you are a Reserve member, not realizing you are qualified up the hoop with a tonne of experience.  I guess I could of signed the IPS, been posted another dozen times or so, and lose that second income the spouse brings.  I am digressing and apologize.

The Army will lose a lot of good people due to the stand down and resource constraints.   Having been part of a Total Force unit when it existed, it did provide a valuable resource to draw folks in to the Regular Force, and additional manning as required.  It did suck the weekends and Thursday nights that we had to work, but it was still fun.  When the decision to strip the Reserve elements from the Air Defence and close the smaller MANPAD units in the brigades, it was initially a godsend to start pooling all of the Reg Force members in the NB region.  However, with increased operational tempo, I am quite certain some of the very dedicated reservists that we punted to other units would be appreciated to increase the depth and cover some of the other tasks/deployments. 

Let's hope the business planners are looking closely at next year's allocations so that resources are pooled and managed to ensure training.   This means that those so called "bloated posns" such as the Adjt, Trg O, and Ops O types are definitely needed so finite planning and a cost benefit analysis on each event is undertaken to maximize the training opportunity.


----------



## VIChris

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> The whole "Just a reservist" attitude is sadly still alive and will continue until said  guilty parties (dare I say mentors) stop treating reservists like the ugly girl at the bar come 3 am.



You make it sound like there's something wrong with that girl. I always looked at her as being dependable, something of a sure thing. Maybe the mucky mucks can just learn to appreciate the ugly chick at the bar come 3am.


----------



## R031button

Spanky said:
			
		

> Where do I begin?  You are right, parading without pay has been prohibited for quite some time.  I'm sure there are policies that would deal with Class B COs as well.  I'm not going to get into a urinating competition with you over this.  You pointed out some "breaches" in order to make the reservist leadership seem to appear like a bunch of free loading sponges.  I countered by pointing out that there are "breaches" that make reserve leadership look like a bunch of honourable leaders with the best interests of their men as a priority.  I know which group I have more respect for.
> I'm sure the same can be said for reg force leadership.
> As far as my position in my regiment goes?  Totally irrelevant and what is your point?



Right, there are breaches that go both ways, fair, and I whole heatedly accept that there's just bad leaders in the regular force. I also have a great deal of respect for those that stay in the reserves and put in their time and effort to keep our units running. However my point was that, even if it's not intentional, these positions are not required and do leech from budget. Please explain to me why units that stand at company strength require Lt Col's and CWOs.

The position in the regiment comment is relevant to this discussion because with 29 years in you are most likely in one of those positions we're talking about, which points to a fair degree of bias.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>One wonders how much money could be saved in the reserves by looking at the 50 odd CO's and RSM's of Reserve Infantry Regiments, many full time, compared to the amount of troops they "command." I know of one such unit in BC that parades a platoon minus, has a full time Lt Col and Adj, as well as an RSM that is paid to drive in and spend three days in a hotel every week. Yet no exercises until March?

In the case of the part-timers, the answer is easy: multiple the difference in pay (LCol - Maj, CWO - MWO) times the number of days paraded on average.  In the case of the full-timers, the question is why/how the full-timer came to be there.  I suppose a platoon(-) in a small community which has withered away to a couple of Lts plus NCMs needs some "adult guidance", but how would a full-time LCol come to be authorized or posted in except by an authority somewhat higher than the unit?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

R031button said:
			
		

> Right, there are breaches that go both ways, fair, and I whole heatedly accept that there's just bad leaders in the regular force. I also have a great deal of respect for those that stay in the reserves and put in their time and effort to keep our units running. However my point was that, even if it's not intentional, these positions are not required and do leech from budget. Please explain to me why units that stand at company strength require Lt Col's and CWOs.
> 
> The position in the regiment comment is relevant to this discussion because with 29 years in you are most likely in one of those positions we're talking about, which points to a fair degree of bias.




Pretty bold assumption. You obviously only read and digest what you want to in this discussion. You best go back and read my last response to you. I don't have to defend Spanky but you could only hope to end up half the dedicated soldier that he is. You had a good discussion going until you decided to pull out your smart mouth, short time corporal schtik. Pulling up unfounded accusations, to try back your opinion, such as you have just done, even after being corrected, has just proven that I don't have to waste anymore time with you. Continue tilting at windmills on your own.


----------



## PuckChaser

Cutting a LCol and a CWO will give you money for 4x Pte Basic.... then you have to replace the CO and the RSM with someone, giving you a huge gain of 2 untrained pers per unit. Unless of course said unit has more than one LCol and CWO on payroll, then maybe there's a problem with the Formation letting people stagnate in the unit instead of promoting them to positions commensurate with their rank.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The savings claimed can't be a whole pay packet unless an appointment/position is entirely removed.  The job still has to be done, so the savings is only the delta between the current rank and whatever one replaces it.  I'm all for reducing the actual administrative overhead required of reserve units, but that problem needs to be addressed by attacking the requirements, not by removing people and demanding those left pick up the burden.


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The savings claimed can't be a whole pay packet unless an appointment/position is entirely removed.  The job still has to be done, so the savings is only the delta between the current rank and whatever one replaces it.  I'm all for reducing the actual administrative overhead required of reserve units, but that problem needs to be addressed by attacking the requirements, not by removing people and demanding those left pick up the burden.


Attacking the requirements likely means rethinking the whole structure at the unit level.  There is also room to do he work at higher level HQs without cascading it down to the unit in a lot of cases.


----------



## Remius

Today's citizen.

 http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/01/06/army-reserve-training-takes-brunt-of-dnd-fiscal-adjustments.aspx


----------



## Rifleman62

corp_express, can you spell "Bureaucracy"?

You should telephone your MP, followed up by an email explaining all the facts, names of who you spoke to. Tell the MP's rep what you want. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!


----------



## Dean22

Crantor said:
			
		

> Today's citizen.
> 
> http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/01/06/army-reserve-training-takes-brunt-of-dnd-fiscal-adjustments.aspx



"At 31 Canadian Brigade Group in Southwestern Ontario, the budget has been cut by about 16 per cent. That works out to about $2.5 million on its $18.2-million budget, according to news reports. The brigade also cut 25 full-time jobs. Details about the impact on other reserve units across the country is now just starting to trickle in."

Woe is me.




EDIT: Unless someone printed the wrong numbers the article creator fails at mathematics. $2.5 mill of $18.2 million is a 13.7% cut not a 16% cut.


----------



## corp_express

You're right,  that would most likely stir the pot. 

Would it produce results, I'm not so sure.

For now...  I'm content with raging my thoughts on here I guess. I will never be one, to actually get a hammer pulled down on someone, who I'm sure is trying their best.  Albeit failling in all regards.


----------



## CallOfDuty

Corp,I can see why you would be upset for sure.  Is the anything other than infantry you'd be interested in?  Maybe this could be a chance for a new beginning.  

  In my experience with support trades, and other trades that I've met..the guys who were ex- infantry(or any combat arms) usually bring a level of professionalism and military bearing to their new units and it tends to rub off on others.

Cheers.


----------



## corp_express

The thought crossed my mind briefly... but I have no quals for any other trades...  Starting at the bottom of a long chain "all over again" to simply be part of something, that I am already a part of...     

Going from Inf MCpl Oversees to the equal of Pte Untrained...     Sigh   thanks for the advice,  but I have to wait 6 months before I can re-apply for a CT anyway. Well see how it all works out,  I just wish they could have held my file open until the trade re-opens...  that's the part that really gets me.


----------



## PuckChaser

corp_express said:
			
		

> I just wish they could have held my file open until the trade re-opens...  that's the part that really gets me.



If CTs work the same way an OT does, you have to accept the offer in the same fiscal year as the offer. This might explain why they can't keep your file open.


----------



## George Wallace

:-\

I could see you being made a Cpl and put onto a Trades course and perhaps promoted back to MCpl once you are qualified (as you are already PLQ qualified -- Right?).  This of course would be dependent on what Trade you may transfer to, and that Unit's hierarchy.


----------



## CallOfDuty

...I know some MSE op remusters from combat arms who were allowed to skip the QL3 alltogether and show up to the new unit ready to work like the rest of us.   Keep in mind trades such as Airborne electronic sensor operator, or Search and rescue techs are  primarily filled with remusters. Sometimes Sgt's and WO's who've had to go back to being a corporal.  

   Anyway...not trying to take away from what you really want..just telling you it happens all the time


----------



## corp_express

You are right,  and if OT's operate Fiscally, CT may be the same,  if that's the case,  it all makes sense...  I don't know if it's the best way of doing business, but it's the way we do it...  I guess I just got caught in a hole.

Sigh...  Guess I shouldn't have sat on the CT offer I got when I came home. Wouldn't be in this mess now.


----------



## Spanky

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't have to defend Spanky but you could only hope to end up half the dedicated soldier that he is.
> 
> Awww Gee Shucks. :-[  Thanks Recceguy.  I'm pretty much finished with R031 on this point.  R031, the amount of money being spent on Class A LCols and CWOs is, I'm sure, not going to solve the problem of money being cut from the Reserve budget to the extent that we are experiencing.  The issue is much bigger being either one of poor planning by the "adults" that the Reserves are providing a quick, easy, and short-sighted solution for, or for those that wear tin-foil hats, something less than benevolent.  Either way, we need to be able to hold things together until the dust settles and we can see as far into the future as we can.  Those of us who have been in the reserves for a while have seen this before.  We got beyond it then...eventually, hopefully we will again.


----------



## COBRA-6

And it's not just the Inf NCM's. 

I know a Res Inf Maj who was just told the same thing after he put his CT in: "closed". He also did a tour overseas, 4 of them. And Reg Force Phase Trg (incl Ph IV), and Reg F AOC. 

Oh well, maybe he will still be around when the trade opens. Or maybe he will be like MANY other Class B's I know: prememtively left the Army for greener pastures elsewhere in the CF, or outside it completely. 

You know I completely understand the need to trim budgets, cut fat, reduce overhead etc, but the haphazard knee-jerk way in which this is being conducted is totaly uncalled for. Instead of simply firing people here and there, not renewing contracts when they expire etc, why don't we look at ALL current class B posns, determine exactly which posns are essential and affordable, and then merit everyone for them? Too much work I guess... Or maybe those higher up don't want to have to answer "what would you say that you do here" a-la Office Space, or people that haven't passed a BFT or deployed since the last liberal government, yet are still on full-time contracts don't want to merited against those who have...

And the whole Reg F /Class B /Class C/double-dipping/CT employment mess needs to be revamped CF wide. There has got to be a better way to skin this cat. 

Just my $0.02...


----------



## PuckChaser

The CLS and LFC Comd stated in townhalls that they actually have no clue where all of these Cl B positions are... there was no accounting system to keep track of who got employed where and for what reason. I believe there is an audit going on at this time, but I'm sure some of the people that are actually employable are going to get their jobs cut in the mean time while the "Office Space" crew have become very good at staying under the radar.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Tinfoil hat time. Does anyone think the policy of a tour, employed in trade, and a CT into the same trade allowing you to carry your rank over to the Regs has anything to do with this?

ie: An armoured reservist crew commander qualified MCpl, if employed on tour as a crew commander, can CT straight to amoured Regs as a cc qual'd MCpl.

Maybe the powers that be have seen this as a way to shut off that tap?


----------



## old fart

Courses are just that courses.  A military career so much more unpinned by building lifelong experience in the regular world and rank if gained, gained in competion with an equivilent geen pool.

If you think rank gained in the reserves is equivalent then you are delusional, and likley incapable of understanding my and many others perspective on this.

Not easy reading for some, I'm sure. 

My .02c.


----------



## Haggis

old fart said:
			
		

> If you think rank gained in the reserves is equivalent then you are delusional, and likley incapable of understanding my and many others perspective on this.



So, a Reserve Inf WO - with two tours as an Inf WO  - who has completed the same ALQ and Inf DP4 as his Reg F coursemates (since both are total force courses)  is not equally as quailfied?

Is there a separate QS for ALQ and Inf DP4 that none of us know about?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

old fart said:
			
		

> Courses are just that courses.  A military career so much more unpinned by building lifelong experience in the regular world and rank if gained, gained in competion with an equivilent geen pool.
> 
> If you think rank gained in the reserves is equivalent then you are delusional, and likley incapable of understanding my and many others perspective on this.
> 
> Not easy reading for some, I'm sure.
> 
> My .02c.


I'm sorry. I didn't mean to wake you up. What's not easy reading is your post. In your haste to continue the slandering of Reserves you failed to look at your grammar, syntax and spelling. Or perhaps that's the level of your salient education. I don't know, but it was not easy.

I really don't care what your Jurassic attitudes and feelings are. The policy I stated is one that is in place and put there by people, unlike yourself, that can see past the edge of their desk. I had no part in the process. No one is arguing equivalencies. I'm sure you've ensured that no one, reg or reserve, ever ever reaches your lofty qualifications and experience. Heaven forbid you should ever have to abdicate your throne.

Just a hint, in case you've missed the twenty or so times you've been told in the last few days, cut the Reg\ Reserve slander bullshit. Everyone knows your a dinosaur and the scree is old and worn. Besides, it's been hashed out completely here before, and you lose.


----------



## COBRA-6

I would suggest that operational experience trumps courses or time-in-rank, regardless of Reg/Res status.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The CLS and LFC Comd stated in townhalls that they actually have no clue where all of these Cl B positions are... there was no accounting system to keep track of who got employed where and for what reason. I believe there is an audit going on at this time, but I'm sure some of the people that are actually employable are going to get their jobs cut in the mean time while the "Office Space" crew have become very good at staying under the radar.



CLS is LFC Comd - the Chief fo the Land Staff is the Commander of Land Force Command.  I suspect you mean LFCA Comd - Commander, Land Forces Central Area.  A not insignificant diference.


There's a lack of willingness to know.  It's easy to identfy at the top level (and has been done in the past).  One staff officer in less than a week used to be able to identify full-time employment of all primary Reservists belonging to LFC including employing L1, L2 and L3 organizations - that is, it could be identified that Cpl Bloggins of the Third Bn, Royal Moose Regiment, was employed full-time by LFDTS, under CTC.  No time consuming staff-checks required.

However, the worst offenders (Hello, LFCA and Land Staff) do not want to know about the problem - so claiming "it needs more study" buys them time.  It also permits them to continue to employ people doing useless or less useful tasks.  And best of all, it creates massive low-level staff churn and busywork, so everyone appears busy.

But here's a question:  If the CLS and Comd LFCA do not know where their people are employed, why are the G1s for the Land Staff and LFCA HQ not being charged with negligent performance of a duty?  One would think that the G1 branch would be responsible to track personnel - what have they been doing instead?


There is no institutional will to reign in the worst abuses - they are encouraged at the top levels ("Retire from the Reg F so I can post in a protégé to groom him for the future, and I'll hire you as a Class B reservist - and promote you too!").  "Faire une exemple pour encourager les autres" is needed at the top levels to clean out the rot.


----------



## Edward Campbell

old fart said:
			
		

> Courses are just that courses.  A military career so much more unpinned by building lifelong experience in the regular world and rank if gained, gained in competion with an equivilent geen pool.
> 
> If you think rank gained in the reserves is equivalent then you are delusional, and likley incapable of understanding my and many others perspective on this.
> 
> Not easy reading for some, I'm sure.
> 
> My .02c.




There is _some_, limited, merit in what you say. The overwhelming majority of military members in the _average_, below average, and _poor_ segments do, indeed, rely, almost solely, on "time in" to secure their comfortable, dare I say 'fat' uniformed sinecures. This was, in my (35+ years) experience, and probably still is pretty prevalent across the Regular Force.

The Reserve Force, in my much more limited experience, is different. There are, to be sure, a lot of 'time servers' - usually there for the social life. But many of the Reservists I knew/know are more like the _better than most_, superior, and _exceptional_ Regular Force members who have limited - but often _intense_ - experience, quite a few courses and an amazing capacity (greater than I had) to wring the maximum benefit from each experience.

As a long service *regular* who has had the pleasure to know some reservists I find your general tone 'stuffy' and narrow minded - and, I suspect, based upon ignorance or one or two bad experiences.

I, too, have opinions and (can be) an asshole.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I can't understand why some members are so worried about their place in the pecking order that they are willing to put the greater good of the mission and CF in general in the back seat.

I don't have that much experience but I've bumped into a lot of members who were more worried about it looking like someone was doing their job for them than actually getting the job done.  What happened to mission before self?

Really hoping that mentality dies out with the dinosaurs, the CF will be a better place for it.


----------



## George Wallace

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Really hoping that mentality dies out with the dinosaurs, the CF will be a better place for it.



Unfortunately that mentality wasn't held by all the dinosaurs, nor is it restricted to the dinosaurs.  In fact, it seems to have been a rather recent phenomenon.


----------



## Haggis

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately that mentality wasn't held by all the dinosaurs


Don't you mean "Fortunately"?  Many dinosaurs were more than happy to have Resevists alongside them.  What a difference 20 years makes!  Oka/Akwesasne in 1990 was a perfect example.  During the 1970 October Crisis, when the Reg F showed up at the Armoury in Cornwall they sent all the Reservists home ("The pros are here.  Thanks for coming out.  Now leave.").  However when 1 RCR showed up in 1990, the CO immediately asked for, and was given, all the Reservists under command (Hey, I've got two extra platoons!!!)



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> nor is it restricted to the dinosaurs.


  Unfortunately I see it far too often in young(er) former Reservists who now treat their past peers with contempt.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> In fact, it seems to have been a rather recent phenomenon.


  Not really.  It's just more out in the open now, I think, because the Reserves have reached an unforseen and uncomfortable level of expertise and experience bordering on professionalism as full members of the Defence Team.  Some see this as a competetive rather than complimentary situation when faced with resource pressures.


----------



## Michael OLeary

recceguy said:
			
		

> Tinfoil hat time. Does anyone think the policy of a tour, employed in trade, and a CT into the same trade allowing you to carry your rank over to the Regs has anything to do with this?
> 
> ie: An armoured reservist crew commander qualified MCpl, if employed on tour as a crew commander, can CT straight to amoured Regs as a cc qual'd MCpl.
> 
> Maybe the powers that be have seen this as a way to shut off that tap?



Why shut off that tap, it's the only one that effectively bypassed the choke-point in the recruit training system, which no-one has proposed a credible solution for yet.


----------



## armyvern

Haggis said:
			
		

> Don't you mean "Fortunately"?



I think he was saying "Unfortunately, more than just dinosaurs have that mentality" ... peut être.

Whichever it is - the attitude of "We versus Them" sucks; is not warranted, is not deserved, and has been proven to be a total fallacy umpteen times ... yet still, there are those who insist on perpetuating this crap attitude. I think the attitude says more negative about the bearer of it though, than those of whom they believe they are speaking.


----------



## PuckChaser

old fart said:
			
		

> If you think rank gained in the reserves is equivalent then you are delusional, and likley incapable of understanding my and many others perspective on this.
> 
> Not easy reading for some, I'm sure.



Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I'm a far better MCpl than some of the guys I've seen who've been in rank longer than I've been employed by the CF. Res F, Reg F, it doesn't matter. Its how you make the most of the training and experiences you've been handed. Its a real shame that there are people like you that judge pers simply on a small point on their MPRR that says Reg F or Res F, instead of actually letting someone prove that they are worthy of max, or minimum supervision on their own merits and work ethic.


----------



## Rifleman62

I seem to remember that a member here, while in a previous job, could answer instantaneously, any question relating to Army Reserve establishments, employment, budgets, parading strength, etc, etc, etc. Do you remember that guy DAP?


----------



## armyvern

I think that guy got out and went BClass ... DAP might know for sure.  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

I heard that guy left his class B, became a public servant, resumed class A service - but his unit has stood down for the rest of the FY because of budget cuts.

But that's just a rumour...


----------



## armyvern

Can that be considered to be some form of "triple-dipping"??  ;D

Geez, if those rumors are true, it sucks to be that guy! I feel bad for him.  :'(


----------



## COBRA-6

Naw, triple-dipping is when you leave the Reg F with pension to become a DND Public Servant, and are also a Class A Reservist!


----------



## armyvern

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Naw, triple-dipping is when you leave the Reg F with pension to become a DND Public Servant, and are also a Class A Reservist!



Geez, I bet he just can't wait until end-FY then ... only to have them tell him on 01 April that "it's was all a joke".  :-X


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> Tinfoil hat time. Does anyone think the policy of a tour, employed in trade, and a CT into the same trade allowing you to carry your rank over to the Regs has anything to do with this?





			
				old fart said:
			
		

> Courses are just that courses.  A military career so much more unpinned by building lifelong experience in the regular world and rank if gained, gained in competion with an equivilent geen pool.
> 
> If you think rank gained in the reserves is equivalent then you are delusional, and likley incapable of understanding my and many others perspective on this.


 7 to 9 months on tour, plus 6 months work-up training before that covers a fairly significant chunck of the experience delta.  If the individual performed adequately for that period while employed in occupation (so not in an ATR position), then I would comfortably say that they could succeed in the Reg F.


I suppose there is a danger that the individual grossly under-performed and it was not reflected on a theatre PER and so will get through the screening.  From what I've seen, that danger is not any greater than already Reg F under-performers sliding along through the system.


----------



## CountDC

and the fun continues.

CANFORGEN 003/10 CMP 002/10 051828Z JAN 10
CHANGES TO NDHQ PRL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES
UNCLASSIFIED

1. DUE TO TO INCREASED DEMANDS FOR PERSONNEL TO TRANSFER TO THE NDHQ PRIMARY RESERVE LIST (PRL) THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY 

A. ALL REQUESTS FOR TRANSFERS, NEW HIRES OR RENEWALS, WILL REQUIRE 30 DAYS FOR PROCESSING STARTING THE DATE ALL COMPLETED PAPERWORK IS SUBMITTED. INCOMPLETE SUBMISSIONS WILL INCUR EVEN FURTHER DELAYS 

B. ALL PERSONNEL WHO ARE HELD AGAINST A POSITION ON EITHER THE NDHQ PRL OR SUPP RES BUT WHO ARE WORKING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMAND WILL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THAT COMMAND 

C. SPLIT ANNUITANT BREAKS ARE NO LONGER AUTHORIZED AND 

D. EFFECTIVE 11 JANUARY 2010, ALL REQUESTS FOR CL B HIRES WILL BE PROCESSED BY THE NDHQ PRL STAFF WHO WILL USE THE NEW RESERVE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (REO) SOFTWARE. EMPLOYERS ARE TO CONTACT MCPL D. ARSENAULT AT 613-943-0636 WHO WILL PUBLISH ALL CL B EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY MSGS. HIRES MADE THROUGH THE OLD MESSAGING PROCESSES ARE NO LONGER VALID AND WILL HAVE TO BE READVERTISED FOR 30 DAYS THROUGH REO 

E. PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM. DAOD 5023-2 IS CLEAR THAT TESTS ARE VALID FOR 365 DAYS UNLESS THE EXEMPTION LEVEL IS ACHIEVED. PERSONNEL WHO ARE NOT RETESTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE EXPIRATION DATE AND WHO DO NOT HAVE A MEDICAL EXEMPTION, WILL BE PLACED ON INITIAL COUNSELLING. EMPLOYING UNITS WHO WERE TOLD PRIOR TO THIS CANFORGEN TO ISSUE AN INITIAL COUNSELLING AND HAVE FAILED TO DO SO, HAVE UNTIL 31 JAN TO SIGN APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION OR THE MEMBER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO FIND A NEW UNIT TO TRANSFER TO. CF MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT THEIR PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST IS UP TO DATE FOR CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT. THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS UNLESS PERSONALLY GRANTED BY THE CO NDHQ PRL, ASST CMP OR CMP 

2. UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE DEMANDS UPON THE NDHQ PRL FOR CL B PERSONNEL ARE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED, THE ABOVE CHANGES WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT 

3. SIGNED MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CHIEF MILITARY PERSONNEL


----------



## Remius

Ouch.  CMP is getting in on it.  I wonder how many people are on the NDHQ PRL.


----------



## COBRA-6

It should be noted that Land Staff Class B Reservists would be on the LFC PRL, not the NDHQ PLR in most cases.


----------



## CountDC

True enough but by reading para 1(b) it appears that LFC along with the other commands decided NDHQ PRL was a nice place to park some of their Cl B's.


----------



## Remius

Apparently recruiters have grounded their vehicles until Apr 1.  No money for fuel.

Pack mules and carrier pigeons to be issued.


----------



## Haggis

Crantor said:
			
		

> I wonder how many people are on the NDHQ PRL.


About 700, I believe.  There are other PRLs as well, LFC, AIRCOM, CANSOFCOM and ADM (IM) to name a few.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> About 700, I believe.  There are other PRLs as well, LFC, AIRCOM, CANSOFCOM and ADM (IM) to name a few.



My understand is that withe the transfer of the Comm REs from ADM(IM) to LFC, the ADM(IM) PRL will shortly be dissolved, and, like all other NDHQ elements, ADM(IM) will have their reservists held by the NDHQ PRL.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My understand is that withe the transfer of the Comm REs from ADM(IM) to LFC, the ADM(IM) PRL will shortly be dissolved, and, like all other NDHQ elements, ADM(IM) will have their reservists held by the NDHQ PRL.



The IM Gp PRL stood up _after_ the Comm Res went to LFC.  It exists to capture all those members employed in NDHQ, Leitrim etc. who don't "fit" in Comm Gps or units because of thier MOSIDs.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> The IM Gp PRL stood up _after_ the Comm Res went to LFC.  It exists to capture all those members employed in NDHQ, Leitrim etc. who don't "fit" in Comm Gps or units because of thier MOSIDs.



Actually, it was the old Comm Res PRL renamed.  CFAO 2-8 (I think) referred to it.  I believe the VCDS staff are pushing for ADM(IM) to be the same as everyone else - if they want to have reservists working for them, they can be on the NDHQ PRL.  Only force generators will be keeping their PRLs - the ECSes and CANSOFCOM.


----------



## Kat Stevens

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> I would suggest that operational experience trumps courses or time-in-rank, regardless of Reg/Res status.



If this is indeed the case, then some of you need to look at old fart's resume a little closer before calling him an idiot or anything else for that matter.  He's been out from behind the desk quite a few times.


----------



## armyvern

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> If this is indeed the case, then some of you need to look at old fart's resume a little closer before calling him an idiot or anything else for that matter.  He's been out from behind the desk quite a few times.



I'd agree with that Kat.

It's also wise for everyone to remember that not all ResF trades are required to take the "same" courses (lots of ResF pers still take 'condensed versions') as their RegF counterparts. There's been some posts here that would lead one to believe that courses are the same regardless of component - that's not true.

At the end of the day though, no one should be tarred as "more worthy" or "not worthy" based upon only courses, op experience, or CF component ... words and deeds speak much louder than any of that.  There are shitty pers out there regardless of component, op experience and courses undertaken. Anyone who chooses to tar a group based only upon the cover is RTFOo er.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sorry Kat. He could have every mission we've ever opened. His piss poor attitude still sucks and his tours are no excuse for him thinking he is better than anyone else. If anything, they should have expanded his horizons. Instead he remains a closed minded bigot.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I've yet to read anything from him that says he thinks he's better than anyone else.  He happens to be from the same era as me, when we would get reservists sent on ex/taskings with three years in the Mo and a leaf on their sleeve, expecting to be 2 ic of a section of reg force sappers and corporals who did the job all day and every day.  4 week TQ3 courses, 6 week TQ5A courses, 3 year jacks, 4year sergeants, 6 year WOs.  Yes, things are 180 degrees better now, thank God, due in part to the fact that they are now actually what they were always supposed to be in the past: RESERVES.  Look the word up.  Old fart's point, that if you want to be a full time soldier, then get off the pot and be one is not invalid, no matter how distasteful we may find it.  Yes, class B frees up reg troops to go be reg troops, no argument here.  I find the class B system myself somewhat foolish, if you want the benefit and security of full time soldiering, than accept the full time obligation and liability that goes along with it.  O F also stated enough times that he respects fully and completely the res troops who've stepped up, or was I the only one who read that?


----------



## Dissident

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> O F also stated enough times that he respects fully and completely the res troops who've stepped up, or was I the only one who read that?



I do not remember reading this, I might have missed it.

What I remember reading from OF was something that came across that he would vote for slashing the PRes budget so that (His) RegF budget remain untouched or less affected.

His following explanation made it look like he had only contempt for the reserve, the thread devolving into another Reg/Res debate.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Dissident said:
			
		

> I do not remember reading this, I might have missed it.
> 
> What I remember reading from OF was something that came across that he would vote for slashing the PRes budget so that (His) RegF budget remain untouched or less affected.
> 
> His following explanation made it look like he had only contempt for the reserve, the thread devolving into another Reg/Res debate.



Fair enough, but has anyone asked him  to clarify his position?  What's unreasonable about spending more money on the reg force during a time of war?  there are only so many dollars in the pot, fewer than a few years ago when the war was new and exciting.

edited to add-  I've just reviewed 4 pages of O Fs posts, and did not see anything remotely resembling anti Mo hate speech, certainly nothing worthy of the venom he's getting here.


----------



## dapaterson

Kat:

The theoretical model is a very small Reg F, ready to handle roto 0, roto 1 and maybe 2, and then a much larger Res force, which can surge to continue onwards.

Thus, in that paradigm, we'd reduce the Reg F infantry by 2/3; the engineers by half, the armd by 1/2, the guns by 1/3, and keep standing CSS much more than Cbt arms, given the larger training burden

Of course, the Reg F cbt arms types freak out at any sort of logic like that... and instead insist that we retain large, expensive reg F cbt arms units with not much to do motst of the time, and spend ridiculous amounts to sustain them.

Right now (and prior to deploying toA'stan) the Reg F has begun imploding - so we hire reservists to act as recruiters for the Reg F; once the new Reg F recruit reaches St Jean he'll be trained by Reservists at the school; then we'll send him to the schools of CTC with their hundreds of Reserve augmentees for his QL3.


Meanwhile, the Reg F refuses to fill positions in Res units.


Someone isn't fulfilling their part of the equation.  And it sure as hell isn't the Reserves...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

As far as I'm concerned, he's clarified it by accepting what's been stated without rebuttal. I also missed what you say he stated. If I was the only one here that felt as such, I could say I'm misunderstanding, but I am far from the only one on this.

I also don't think I have to state my abundant TI, in more than one trade, and more than one element in places foreign and at home, in the Regs and Reserves, to know the difference in his attitude and the one you're purporting.

Anyway, people on all sides have their minds made up, and no amount of posting here is going to change that. So I will doff my hat and bid adieu to this discussion.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Sounds great, because a neutered reg force worked pretty darn well between the two Great Misunderstandings.  How are you going to mobilize this much larger res force without invoking the War Measures act, something we're pretty nervous about in Canada?


----------



## aesop081

recceguy said:
			
		

> , people on all sides have their minds made up, and no amount of posting here is going to change that.ting.



I certainly hope you include yourself in that group RG. It is rather clear that your mind is made up.

DAP, RG and many others......

Though your posts seem to be reasoned, you all contribute to the "Us vs Them" that you all deplore regularly.

Pot...kettle......


----------



## Dissident

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but has anyone asked him  to clarify his position?



Frankly, I don't care much anymore. Reservist will always be treated like the retarded cousin and he started to go down the same old road. He might be a really awesome guy, a great leader and a peerless warrior, but I was/am not interested in listening to the same rhetoric.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> What's unreasonable about spending more money on the reg force during a time of war?



The OP tempo from our deployments would not have been sustainable (not by a long shot) for my trade had the reserve not stepped up. It would be great to have a dollar to dollar comparison on what the reg force MPs are costing versus what the res MPs are costing and how much each component has put out pers wise. Not a fair comparison, I know. What about other trades though?


----------



## Occam

Dissident said:
			
		

> I do not remember reading this, I might have missed it.



Different thread.



			
				old fart said:
			
		

> And, in closing as I have said before, I appreciate the Reserves who have stepped up to the plate and deployed overseas...without them under our present deployment modus operandi, carrying out the mandate of the Government of Canada would not be possible.
> 
> Yours aye....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I certainly hope you include yourself in that group RG. It is rather clear that your mind is made up.
> 
> Absolutely, I never professed otherwise. However, I am never adverse to listening to _reasoned_ opinion, and have been known, on more than one occasion, to have surrendered and become converted to a view opposite, or different, to my original.
> DAP, RG and many others......
> 
> Though your posts seem to be reasoned, you all contribute to the "Us vs Them" that you all deplore regularly.
> 
> Pot...kettle......
> 
> Considering there is no black and white, only various shades of grey, some darker than others, it really can't be any other way. Thanks for stating the obvious


----------



## armyvern

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, the Reg F refuses to fill positions in Res units.
> 
> 
> Someone isn't fulfilling their part of the equation.  And it sure as hell isn't the Reserves...



Guess what? The RegF refuses to fill posns in RegF Units too. Let's not pretend this is limited to ResF posns. Rather those posns are filled on the pri basis.

Perhaps all of the Army's troubles would go away had the political front treated this "war" just like it IS: A War. last time I cecked, there's officially no war happening.  Doing that, of course, would costs a great many dollars as it would allow for rapid force expansion and increased government funding that would allow for those required personnel to actually "make it happen" get paid, trained, buy equipment etc. After a decade and a half of the Forces (both reg and Res) of stepping up to the plate and getting things done "more with less" ... we simply can't do that anymore. The days of the 90s are coming back to squarely bite us on the ass today. The bubble due to ZERO recruiting etc is starting with it's little "pops" ... I'm sure they'll be louder by end-FY.

The cause of the problem IMO? A decade of political handwringing, coupled by an ongoing refusal by todays government to officially acknowledge (either in public or elsewhere) that we ARE at war. I don't expect to see the CF getting the proper funding it requires to look after all of it's components until those political masters start informing Canadians as to the actualities of our mission, our funding, and our status as a nation.

Steven Staples et al are just loving this.


----------



## aesop081

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And it sure as hell isn't the Reserves...



Yeah right. How quickly memory fades. Want to talk about the mid-90s where reservists couldnt be bothered to come out for their own training exercises ? I sure spent a fair bit of extra field time those years filling in for missing reservists.

Theres plenty of balme to go around. Dont think for a second that the PRes doesnt shoulder any blame for the mess it is in.


----------



## Otis

Another problem that seems to have happened THIS year as I understand it ...

For the last few years, people have gotten used to not budgeting properly ... knowing that Treasury Board will "top up" money at the end of the year. This year they've said enough is enough. The CF got the biggest budget it's had in years, and the TB was unwilling to go higher or give more.

Having said that, I agree with Vern ... the Army shouldn't have had to pay costs for A'stan out of it's own Op budget all these years.

WRT the arguments Res vs Reg ... I've been both, I've worked with both, I've done Class A, Class B ... There are useful people in ALL areas, there are useless people in ALL areas. No one 'group' can be wholly blamed for the current situation. Every individual is going to judge based on their current situation. "I can't get what I want because the damn RegF hasn't filled the Admin billet in my unit" ... "I can't get that lazy reservist to show up even for the limited training he's supposed to show up for" ... "Why can't I keep the class B job I've been doing for the last 8 years"

We've got a job to do ladies and gents ... it's going to take all of us to get through it and get it done ... we're not getting any more from Ottawa by bitching about it ... let's not start fighting among ourselves and make it HARDER!

On top of that, if it's going to come down to ME to be the reasonable, peacemaking one ... we're all in some REAL trouble!!! 

Otis


----------



## dapaterson

Pri 5: Reserve units.  Pri 6: Garrisons etc.  Last time I checked, Pri 6 units were filled more than Pri 5.

(1) The CF's military leadership hasn't treated this like a war; why, then, should the political leadership?  Since 2001, how many service members have we sent on year-long Dari or Pastu courses?  Zero.  How many have we sent on two-year long Korean courses, so they can fill staff college exchange billets?  We're a business as usual CF.  No need to change.  If we ignore things long enough they'll return to nrmal - look, 2011 is just around the corner...

(2) The Army has yet to grapple with its tooth to tail ratios.  Dedicated 2nd line CSS units are just that - 2nd line CSS, not base support augmentees.  The Army leadership (generally) doesn't want to take the time to understand CSS - and doesn't want to admit that a peacetime force will be oriented towards the skillset heavy CSS trades vice the Cbt Arms.


Cdn Aviator:

There are unmotivated Res and Reg F pers both (walk around a HQ some time and play "spot the blob with no fitness testing since the '90s" - I think the Reg/Res ratios are pretty much proportionate). The whole Reg F doesn't hate the Reserves; the whole Res F doesn't hate the Regs.  I think sometimes we do let things get out of hand in finger-pointing.

But when the Army arbitrarily cuts 10% of the Reserve pay budget in halfway through the year, after the summer where over 1/3 of the money is spent, it's hard not to be upset.  The army is taking about 3/8 of its cuts directly from Reserve pay (but still is proceeding with other dubious initiatives - $1M for the Army Run, who knows how much for 1 Can Div's glorious resurrection...).  A question I was asked by a subordinate: "Where are the big-brained high speed people who are supposed to be planning things?"

Perhaps the biggest problem with the current reductions is this: poor communications.  A PAff LCol should not be speaking on this to the press.  The Army Commander made a decision with significant impacts - he should be the one to stand up and talk, not slough it off to a low-ranked staff wanker.  (Note: by definition, all PAff staff are wankers, Reg or Res)


In short, be they Reg or Res, we need the institution's leaders to display some leadership.


----------



## DjC

Crantor said:
			
		

> Today's citizen.
> 
> http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/01/06/army-reserve-training-takes-brunt-of-dnd-fiscal-adjustments.aspx



Any new word (asides from the article) on the hiring freeze? I applied in October but have yet to hear anything.


----------



## McG

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> O F also stated enough times that he respects fully and completely the res troops who've stepped up, or was I the only one who read that?





			
				Dissident said:
			
		

> I do not remember reading this, I might have missed it.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I also missed what you say he stated.


He has said it in other threads and in this thread:



			
				old fart said:
			
		

> ... as I have said before, I appreciate the Reserves who have stepped up to the plate and deployed overseas...without them under our present deployment modus operandi, carrying out the mandate of the Government of Canada would not be possible.






			
				old fart said:
			
		

> I'm not interested in hearing we could not function overseas without the contribution from our deployed Reservists...and I am certainly not knocking the contribution they have made...but a Reg Force fit for purpose would not need to draw on reserve augmentation.






			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, he's clarified it by accepting what's been stated without rebuttal.


I think he has been misrepresented in some of the counter points put to him.  I do not believe he has been attacking either Reservists or their contribution to the current war effort.  He has, however, derided the fact that the Regular Force should have been able to handle the Afghanistan mission without the need for a massive reserve lifeline.

It seems to be Old Fart's opinion that this failing on the part of the Regular Force is the result of a resource shortfall.

Imagine you are a parachutist and both your primary and reserve chutes are getting a little worn & of questionable reliability.  If you can only only have the resources to fix one (and for the sake of the analogy, not jumping is not an option), do you put your money into the primary or the reserve?  

Fortunately, the Army is a more complicated beast than the parachute analogy.  Niether the Reg F nor the PRes are all-or-nothing entities, and so trade-offs are possible (ie: lessen capacities in some places to reinforce in others).  At the same time, there is probably enough waste inside the system that we are not in a position either Reg F or PRes need to be sacrificed to sustain the other.  

As Sun Tzu said: "To be prepared everywhere, is to be weak everywhere."  This applies as much to tactical disposition on the ground as it does to strategic resource allocation.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MCG said:
			
		

> Imagine you are a parachutist and both your primary and reserve chutes are getting a little worn & of questionable reliability.  If you can only only have the resources to fix one (and for the sake of the analogy, not jumping is not an option), do you put your money into the primary or the reserve?


But do you use material from the reserve chute to fix the main one then jump without the reserve?  ;D

I understand what you're saying about OF.
He's not taking credit away from the reserves persay who have served overseas he just feels that the money is better spent on the regular force with a view to them being able to do the job without augmentation.

The problem is that won't happen and the regular force will depend on reserve augmentation for a longtime therefore money needs to be put into the reserves in order for the regularforce TO accomplish the mission.


----------



## Dissident

MCG said:
			
		

> Imagine you are a parachutist and both your primary and reserve chutes are getting a little worn & of questionable reliability.  If you can only only have the resources to fix one (and for the sake of the analogy, not jumping is not an option), do you put your money into the primary or the reserve?



I am no parachutist, but yes, you put your money in the primary.

However, to use your analogy what I am weary of is the reserve (chute) not having enough money to be maintained and fall apart completly(again?). 

Would it not be a shame to lose everything we (the reserve) have learned lately? Especially if it is a consequence of the reserve taking a disproportionately bigger budget hit? 



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> The problem is that won't happen and the regular force will depend on reserve augmentation for a longtime therefore money needs to be put into the reserves in order for the regular force TO accomplish the mission.



Are there not also tasks where the reserve exceed beyond their training? Do I not keep hearing that the reserve does well in reconstruction or CIMIC?


----------



## blacktriangle

Why don't we just downsize the Regs to CANSOFCOM, 3x Inf Bn, and 1x Armd, Arty, Engr regiment each? Keep a slightly larger CSS tail like DAP alluded to in his post. Never deploy more than a company or a combat team at a time, and deploy them as a part of US or Brit units. Get rid of all the fatties, and get rid of the hundreds of senior officers that command desks. Select only the best applicants. We could at least have fully manned units then. Keep the reserves, and hold them to a good standard. Only Class A and B under 180 Svc for training and courses. Get all the best kit for the troops. 

Then I'm sure we can get rid of Class B over 180 days, right?

Anyways I'm going to get ready for the danger close fire, but let's be honest, the way we are organized right now sucks. 

We should really should focus on our sovereignty and a specific area that we can excel at as part of a larger international force. MCG's quote of Sun Tzu is completely what I am talking about. However, I do think that both the Reserves AND the Regs need to be completely shaken up to do this. We have to determine what we want to be, and match it with something that we can actually AFFORD to be.

Ok I'm in the shell scrape now, popnfresh out!


----------



## Jed

Why don't we just downsize to the point of the entire CF working out of maybe 4 or 5 Bases? Why does Canada need the CF anyway? We have the US near by and I'm sure they can look after Canada's interest? Let's get real, Popnfresh, I'm sure the Canadian people want a CF that provides more capability than the establishment you have put foward.

Popped a flare to mark your defensive position, lol.


----------



## Monsoon

Or better yet, do what the Navy did during the 1930s and go to an all-reserve structure. Train the reservists only in dress, drill and deportment for Ceremonial Guard duty. In the event of a crisis or invasion, use them to put up the "KEEP CALM and CARRY ON" posters and organize an orderly transition of power to whoever feels like assuming responsibility for our national debt.

To be honest, I'm afraid there may be a surprising number of Canadians who _do_ only want that from their military.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> Imagine you are a parachutist and both your primary and reserve chutes are getting a little worn & of questionable reliability.  If you can only only have the resources to fix one (and for the sake of the analogy, not jumping is not an option), do you put your money into the primary or the reserve?



You of course have to keep the Main maintained, however, come the day that the Main fails, and the Reserve is no longer there.........All part of the "Peace Dividend" that we have witnessed since the mid 1950's.  We have saved the Main and sacrificed the Reserve.  Once that is done, cuts will then continue to the Main and we have no chute to safely perform the task.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Fortunately, the Army is a more complicated beast than the parachute analogy.  Niether the Reg F nor the PRes are all-or-nothing entities, and so trade-offs are possible (ie: lessen capacities in some places to reinforce in others).  At the same time, there is probably enough waste inside the system that we are not in a position either Reg F or PRes need to be sacrificed to sustain the other.



Indeed.


----------



## armyvern

I had a visit just prior to Christmas by someone here in the midst of the CFRG world ...

Said person advised that the CF Recruiting system had done an absolutely awesome job of recruiting this year - early on meeting the numbers to replace forecasted releases and the "bell-curve" of those unforecasted releases. Signing up what the CF required for the FY ... only they also stated that we then got thrown a huge 'wrench' because after signing up all those news pers ... our nation the found themselves in the midst of a nice little thing we'll call an "economic depression" ... ergo, they went on to say that the "bell curve of unforecasted releases" just DID NOT happen, but the recruiting to replace them was already looked after. So, now we've got 2 pers to pay wages to. The recruited pers and those pers who didn't pull pin as expected - that kicks a shitload of dollars out of the SWE envelope no?

We've got ZERO choice but to pay that SWE and the money has to come from somewhere (because the good old feds ain't going to pay us a dime more on our budget to pay wages to "overage" amounts of personnel we hired (not that we hired them with a minset to 'go over') before the economy took a dive and pin-pulling pers didn't act as expected.

Perhaps, somewhere out there, this move on B Class was deemed "the quick and easy way (admittedly, not the best way)" to find that SWE money now required over and above what we thought we'd have to forkout. 

I dunno, but that's my .02 cents worth.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'll apologise to Old Fart. I obviously missed his intent and wasn't able to fathom everything he said, as I don't read every thread here. I'll retire to the bedlam that is the giant clusterfuck of a Reserve shutdown and concentrate on maintaining whatever Unit cohesion remains, for the future.


----------



## BlueJingo

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...CF Recruiting system had done an absolutely awesome job of recruiting this year - early on meeting the numbers to replace *forecasted releases* and the "bell-curve" of those unforecasted releases.....



Does this mean we get a pat on the back    or that we get a tsk tsk tsk....  :tsktsk:
I personally am happy we made our SIP, especially for some of the red/black trades (those who we have so few of that are in danger of loosing all experienced personnel)

But I am not sure how these 2 budgets coincide? I think it's a stretch to assume that a Class B pers Freeze has anything to do with the Reg F retention rates increasing. I thought that the Reg F always has room in their budget for their increase of numbers... Maybe i'm just too low in the ladder to understand these huge concepts!


----------



## BlueJingo

popnfresh said:
			
		

> ...Get rid of all the fatties....



 :rofl:


----------



## armyvern

Jingo said:
			
		

> Does this mean we get a pat on the back    or that we get a tsk tsk tsk....  :tsktsk:
> I personally am happy we made our SIP, especially for some of the red/black trades (those who we have so few of that are in danger of loosing all experienced personnel)
> 
> But I am not sure how these 2 budgets coincide? I think it's a stretch to assume that a Class B pers Freeze has anything to do with the Reg F retention rates increasing. I thought that the Reg F always has room in their budget for their increase of numbers... Maybe i'm just too low in the ladder to understand these huge concepts!



It means that we have 2 personnel to pay for the remainder of the FY - whereas we were only expecting to have to pay one. One was recruited (thus has to be paid) to replace the the guy they expected to pull pin in an unforecasted manner this past fall (or put in release VR for Jan of this year - seems to be the big month for them) - but that guy did NOT pull pin after all ... and now we get to pay him too!!

Thus, we're paying for double pers for those "bell curve" of unforecasted releases which were expected to occur in fall with release dates in Jan/Feb/Mar.

Both those pers have to get paid out of THIS years money. As far as he stated ... we're not talking nickles and dimes ... we're talking hundreds of pers who did not, as expected, fire in their releases this fall for the new year. Their replacements were already signed up however.

Do you realize how much money those "hundreds of extra people we're now paying" cost? Every dime of it money that the CF "had no choice but to find somewhere". We MUST pay the troops.


----------



## BlueJingo

Yes, thanks... 
... I guess there can be too much of a good thing....(new recruits)
I still say the CDS should play LottoMax to solve the budget crisis.


----------



## armyvern

Jingo said:
			
		

> Yes, thanks...
> ... I guess there can be too much of a good thing....(new recruits)
> I still say the CDS should play LottoMax to solve the budget crisis.



As long as he agrees to a 50/50 of all winnings with me - I say Giddy-up!!  ;D


----------



## CorporalMajor

Haggis said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I see it far too often in young(er) former Reservists who now treat their past peers with contempt.


I notice this too, and I still don't understand it.


----------



## Journeyman

CorporalMajor said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I see it far too often in young(er) former Reservists who now treat their past peers with contempt.
> 
> 
> 
> I notice this too, and I still don't understand it.
Click to expand...

Ever dealt with any "born again" Christians? They can be a pretty irritating lot too.


----------



## CorporalMajor

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I notice this too, and I still don't understand it.
> Ever dealt with any "born again" Christians? They can be a pretty irritating lot too.


LOL.  I can understand that way of looking at it; if it turns out my former unit looks bad next to my new one so be it..  what I don't get is shunning the soldier who I once worked alongside / was freinds with.

Enough of the P Res / Reg F debate..

The reallocation has hit my unit pretty hard.  We are not permitted to sign in for anything - period - until the new FY without our Bde Comd's direct auth.  CL Bs at the unit are gone.  Our senior leaders are meeting up unpaid to discuss how we can mitigate the problem.  I intend to show up at the OR when needed, as I am already being paid via another CL B.  Others won't be able to for liability reasons. 

This is extremely demoralizing for my peers and I am trying to make light of a positive situation by gathering us juniors together for socializing and to keep connected.  I agree that merely complaining about the situation is going to change nothing, so I will do something about it instead. 

Myself, I'm wondering how much worse this can get, for both the Land Res and the rest of the military.  This is after all my career.  I'm optimistic because the CF is in a better place, PR-wise than the mid 90s, but I'm still bracing for the worst.   The email I read from my COC, even hinted at potential releases and transfers.


----------



## Remius

I'm sure it is hitting units harder than others.   Courses in the area are not likely to stand up until Apr if at all.  Class A is limited to 4 full days until Apr.  Not much but there are tasks here and there that troops are able to pick up.  Some are looking for alternate employment and others have indicated they may seek summer employment elsewhere.  That may just be talk though because I doubt the civy world is in much better shape.

Bad situation all around.

CorporalMajor: Using the mess is a great way to help with morale.  Hopefully your mess committee is looking into it.  Your committee should have some money (hopefully) to be able to carry on.  Just because there isn't money for training doesn't mean your mess life has to end.


----------



## Neill McKay

CorporalMajor said:
			
		

> I intend to show up at the OR when needed, as I am already being paid via another CL B.  Others won't be able to for liability reasons.



I wonder if any thought has been given to allowing P. Res pers to serve unpaid on a voluntary basis?  There's a provision allowing CIC officers to do this (we'd never be able to run our units properly using only the paid time we have).

I don't remember the details, but DND may have decided to self-insure against anything arising from a member being injured or incurring liability while performing voluntary service subject to members signing an understanding along the lines that we would act reasonably and in good faith etc.


----------



## dapaterson

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I wonder if any thought has been given to allowing P. Res pers to serve unpaid on a voluntary basis?  There's a provision allowing CIC officers to do this (we'd never be able to run our units properly using only the paid time we have).
> 
> I don't remember the details, but DND may have decided to self-insure against anything arising from a member being injured or incurring liability while performing voluntary service subject to members signing an understanding along the lines that we would act reasonably and in good faith etc.



Bad, bad, Bad, BAD (did I say bad?) idea.

Sailor/soldiers/airmen and airwomen have only their chain of command to look out for them - no unions, associations or other groups to petition on their behalf for fair wages and working conditions.  Once their chain of command embraces having their subordinates working for free, we've violated that trust.

Serivce members have a right to be paid for their work.  Full stop.  If funds are not available to pay them for that work, then either (1) rescope the work to fit within the pay available or (2) increase the priority and provide more pay.

Adding "permission" to parade unpaid will deteriorate into pressure to parade unpaid - and sanctions for not doing it.

If the CF wants reservists, they can pay for their time.

Or, if we like this "volunteer" concept so much, we can cut Reg F pay by 20%, tell them it's unpaid leave, and require them to continue to work.


----------



## Dissident

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If the CF wants reservists, they can pay for their time.



Although a nice principle, even when money was flowing a lot of leaders did not get paid for all the work (class A) done.

But I am not complaining.


----------



## CountDC

I used to work a lot of volunteer days at the unit to ensure the troops got paid, t4s out and claims done.  The CO appreciated it and told me to sign in every day (which I ignored).  Being the Fin NCO at the unit I knew where we stood dollars wise and figured the unit simply could not afford all the time I was putting in to take care of things. Often in the 4th quarter all the leadership (MCpls and up) were working the Admin nights volunteer to keep the unit running and save the money to squeeze in more training weekends.  The unit didn't have the funds allocated to it to do all the training everyone wanted to do so that was the solution we came up with as a unit.  Everyone signed a paysheet that was held by me until March and then if there was additional funds allocated down to the unit we processed them.

The reality is that often the money is not there to cover all the time needed to run the units properly.  The members have to make a choice of volunteering some time or watching the unit fall apart.  Yes, it would be nice to have the money but it is not always there.  Units that do not find a way to bring the troops together will most likely suffer troop losts. Having mess nights may be a solution in some cases, unit members getting together on their own is also good.   Basically anything that will keep the members connected is good if done properly and would stem some of the losts.

Unfortunately the old saying still holds true - the reserves are not a garunteed employment and should not be relied upon as your source of income.  If you want the garunteed military income join the regs (which of course as posted in several threads is another matter to deal with).

I would like to say maybe the leadership will learn but doubt very much that this time will be any different than the times in the past.  The feast and famine cycle will continue.


----------



## Jed

DAP, I am very surprised by your comments wrt priority spending, namely CMTC and the Army Run some how don't rate the funding.

CMTC is absolutely required if Canada wishes to have a credible, capable CF that can function at the same level as other Nations in this world. Without this training capabilty we might as well go back to pre Great War days and be a colony of Great Britain.

The Army Run probably does as much for morale and CF image as say, the Snowbirds or the soldiers on parade at the Parliment buildings.

Yes we must live within our budget but there are many sacred cows that must not be slaughtered because it is abdolutely the wrong thing to do.

Maybe the Army Run is a nice to have but CMTC?


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If the CF wants reservists, they can pay for their time.
> 
> Or, if we like this "volunteer" concept so much, we can cut Reg F pay by 20%, tell them it's unpaid leave, and require them to continue to work.



I remember way back in the early 80s when we all signed in on 'voluntary' pay sheets. I think they were blue or pink or something. Let's hope that these particular forces of darkness do not resurge!


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> The members have to make a choice of volunteering some time or watching the unit fall apart.  Yes, it would be nice to have the money but it is not always there.



Unfortunately, I think some units would need to fall appart in order for higher CoC to realise theres a problem. What I mean is, lets say the CoC cuts funding and members do have to volunteer their time to keep the unit running, and they do. Higher CoC, I think, may look at this and say "Hey! See? They didnt need all that funding. They're still functioning with out it. Better invest it in..." another army run, or something of the sort. 



> The Army Run probably does as much for morale and CF image as say, the Snowbirds or the soldiers on parade at the Parliment buildings.



Really? "Hey, Bloggins. Your Class B is cut, youre also going to have to move out of your house because its only available to Class B. Also, there's no training nights for you to get any money either. But hey, dont worry, we're having an army run next month!"

I dont think the army run does all that much for moral, at least not in the current situation.



> Yes we must live within our budget but there are many sacred cows that must not be slaughtered because it is abdolutely the wrong thing to do.



I think we're both worshipping different cows then. The sacred cow I worship is taking care of the troops and ensuring that they have reliable employment. If the CF wants to retain reserve troops, its going to *have* to be able to compete with the civilian sector. Not everyone *can* go regs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't know about CMTC. The Army Run? Can it, we can't afford it. Trying to put a shiny face of the Army in Ottawa while it's soldiers are unemployed is unethical, if not downright dishonest, disingenuous and disgusting.

I also recall something about a massive sum of cash (millions) being paid out to revamp the RMC Officer's Mess. Anyone know anything about that?


----------



## Jed

OK, I definately am not going to attempt to defend the Army Run as cost effective but I think you are pretty brutal on CMTC for cost effectiveness. The huge cost wasting adventures by the CBGs to Ft Lewis, Ft Yakima where far less effective collective training than any of the Maple Guardian or Maple Defender serials. Until CMTC started up, no one even thought about employing something other than a cold war version of an opposing force (not in Canada anyway). I agree that the earlier serials were pretty big Clusterf**ks but a lot of that had to do with a paradium shift requirement from the PTA.

Good lessons were hoisted aboard even if CMTC and the CF was still in a learning mode and I have no doubt lives were saved because of it. How long do you think it will take for our soldiers to collectively forget these tough lessons if you did not have the CMTC organization?

If the CF is to talk the talk they have to walk the walk, and we can not do that by dumping level 6 and 7 training down to the CBGs or CMBGs. Besides, CMTC was looking at joint training integrating the air force and army anyway.

I guess this is a bit of a sideline to this thread so I won't continue to derail it any further.


----------



## CorporalMajor

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I wonder if any thought has been given to allowing P. Res pers to serve unpaid on a voluntary basis?  There's a provision allowing CIC officers to do this (we'd never be able to run our units properly using only the paid time we have).
> 
> I don't remember the details, but DND may have decided to self-insure against anything arising from a member being injured or incurring liability while performing voluntary service subject to members signing an understanding along the lines that we would act reasonably and in good faith etc.


As I said it is a matter of liability.  We could parade, but if you don't sign in, you're not covered.  If something bad happens, it's on the unit.  I got severely reprimanded once for forgetting to sign in on a range weekend years ago, and that is why.  

We were told that no one in the unit will be given implied or explicit direction to show up unpaid, for the above reasons and to prevent bad will.  It's only fair.  

That is why it would never work.  We can't sign in, and the cred in the COC would be gone if they expected anything from their soldiers for nothing.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> CorporalMajor: Using the mess is a great way to help with morale.  Hopefully your mess committee is looking into it.  Your committee should have some money (hopefully) to be able to carry on.  Just because there isn't money for training doesn't mean your mess life has to end.


I don't know what's happening with our mess because no one really has the time to commit to it.  And it doesn't have all that much money even though it is shared between 6 units.  We just go skiing or hit Honest Lawyer instead, works fine.


----------



## corp_express

Jed said:
			
		

> CMTC is absolutely required if Canada wishes to have a credible, capable CF that can function at the same level as other Nations in this world. Without this training capabilty we might as well go back to pre Great War days and be a colony of Great Britain.
> [/quote
> 
> I guess that's why we send our guys down to California, or Texas...  CMTC is an epic failiure...  we can train command teams in another enironment, as a soldier....  CMTC was useless.
> 
> I'm positive that there is another thread that bashes it so I'll stop here...  but my point is were sending people to the states to train...  how much does that cost, when coupled with the costs of maintaing CMTC...  CMTC should be raised to the ground...  ...
> 
> I would sign in on volunteer time to help with that task. I'm sure I'm not alone in this...
> 
> let's no forget CMTC employs a crap load of P Res members


----------



## Remius

Nero has it right.  Unpaid volunteer service isn't going to help the overall problem.  Yes, it will alieviate immediate problems and so on, but people will expect the system to keep performing the way it is.  I've had to tell guys to stop working on things.  It's hard because we have motivated and dedicated reservists that despite not even getting pay still want mission success.


----------



## CountDC

which ever way units and individuals decide to deal with it hopefully at the end of it all the units are able to maintain a strong central core of troops to build on. No matter how you slice it the reserves are too important to the military and Canada to just let it fall apart, even the social clubs in Toronto.  ;D


----------



## Remius

Hmn.  The irony of all this is with these cutbacks and unit stand-downs we are in a situation where the reserves cannot be properlly used in this case for OP Hestian.  Staff checks are being done.  Great.  Most units army units are stood down.  300 class Bs terminated in LFCA, most of 2CMBG is in California, most of LFWA and a chunk of SQFT are at OP Podium.  Doesn't leave much to either deploy or backfill anything back home...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

LFAA is still up and running with little to no cut backs (yet)......


----------



## Dissident

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmn.  The irony of all this is with these cutbacks and unit stand-downs we are in a situation where the reserves cannot be properlly used in this case for OP Hestian.  Staff checks are being done.  Great.  Most units army units are stood down.  300 class Bs terminated in LFCA, most of 2CMBG is in California, most of LFWA and a chunk of SQFT are at OP Podium.  Doesn't leave much to either deploy or backfill anything back home...



I see it the other way around, me thinks there are plenty of people sitting around waiting to jump in the fray.

It made me so proud last Wednesday that almost everyone in my platoon put their hands up for Haiti if need be.


----------



## aesop081

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmn.  The irony of all this is with these cutbacks and unit stand-downs we are in a situation where the reserves cannot be properlly used in this case for OP Hestian.



What is missing in your position is that i am certain that a fair bit of risk management was done before the decision to cut into the reserves was done. What is also missing is operational details WRT OP HESTIAN to which you may not privy to.


----------



## Remius

Dissident said:
			
		

> I see it the other way around, me thinks there are plenty of people sitting around waiting to jump in the fray.
> 
> It made me so proud last Wednesday that almost everyone in my platoon put their hands up for Haiti if need be.



Yep.  No arguments about that.  Dedicated, motivated.  Despite being on the receiving end.  Maybe some people will lose their pre-conceived ideas about the reserves.


----------



## Remius

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What is missing in your position is that i am certain that a fair bit of risk management was done before the decision to cut into the reserves was done. What is also missing is operational details WRT OP HESTIAN to which you may not privy to.



No, I'm certain they did some risk management.  I doubt it was a lot as everyone was hit by suprise by what was cut.  Cutting class Bs was coming.  Standing down units and cutting training all together was a huge suprise to just about everyone.  If it was coming and they didn't feel the need to warn anyone then my estime in our people at the top would drop.   It doesn't chnage my mind about it being ironic that the Army cuts positions and stands down most of its reserves and one of the most catasrophic natural disasters in our hemisphere happens.  

Maybe they don't need the reserves.  Maybe they could use them.  Either way, one way or the other it has been made less effective now and in the long run..


----------



## brihard

Dissident said:
			
		

> I see it the other way around, me thinks there are plenty of people sitting around waiting to jump in the fray.
> 
> It made me so proud last Wednesday that almost everyone in my platoon put their hands up for Haiti if need be.



Agreed. A lot of folks in my unit who 'missed the boat' for TF 1-10 are chomping at the bit for a chance to sign up for Haiti. It would probably be easier to employ more reservists on a shorter readiness cycle than it would be for Afghanistan- I like to hope that the reserves will be looked on as a potential asset for OP Hestia. We could buy the regs at least some breathing room, I think. We certainly have enough reservists with Kandahar experience to form a solid core of any substantial reserve commitment to Haiti.


----------



## bigcletus

this might not be a popular response for some on here, but I think the Reservists should say NO for this...after getting screwed over by CLS budget cuts...what goes around comes around...


----------



## Dissident

bigcletus said:
			
		

> this might not be a popular response for some on here, but I think the Reservists should say NO for this...after getting screwed over by CLS budget cuts...what goes around comes around...



Yeah, sometimes it is tempting to extend your middle finger to the guy who made you feel like shit, just for being a reservist. Especially when he comes back later to ask for help.

Somehow I know we (the PRes) are better than that.


----------



## bigcletus

I know...what we probably "should" do, and what we do...2 diff things..lol


----------



## vonGarvin

bigcletus said:
			
		

> this might not be a popular response for some on here, but I think the Reservists should say NO for this...after getting screwed over by CLS budget cuts...what goes around comes around...


If you say "no", you're not screwing over the CLS, you're saying "no" to the people of Haiti.  If you can sleep soundly after such a decision, then I would offer that you'd best serve your country by releasing from the CF.


----------



## vonGarvin

bigcletus said:
			
		

> Having served Canada for almost 33 years..I don't need a snide remark fro some useless twat..


Of course you don't.  The remark I made (in case that's the one to which you refer as "snide") was made with a straight face, and it was sincere.

The CLS is not out to "get" the reserves.  Hell, the reserves are an integral part of the Forces, as important as any other part.  Just so you know, Regular Force training has been hit by the budget as well.  If you offer a "no" to serve because you feel hard done by, or whatever, I understand the sentiment.  I went through such budgetary slashing when I was a reservist.  Since I didn't join for the money, and since I was still living at home and the money was but a fringe benefit, I could afford to have that attitude.  Others don't, and many rely upon their earnings to support their way of life (which includes such "trivial" things as food, shelter, clothing, etc).  Yet, as you know, we serve for more than that.  You know it, and I know it.  If you were to turn down a deployment because you felt hard done by due to the economy, tell that not to me, but to the workers who were laid off in the hundreds of thousands over the past year or so.  And tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Haitians who so desperately need our help now.  So, if you can say that to them, with a straight face and without feeling a "twinge", then maybe it's time to hang up the hat, release, and open a spot for someone else to fill.

And have a nice day.


----------



## Brasidas

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Of course you don't.  The remark I made (in case that's the one to which you refer as "snide") was made with a straight face, and it was sincere.
> 
> The CLS is not out to "get" the reserves.  Hell, the reserves are an integral part of the Forces, as important as any other part.  Just so you know, Regular Force training has been hit by the budget as well.  If you offer a "no" to serve because you feel hard done by, or whatever, I understand the sentiment.  I went through such budgetary slashing when I was a reservist.  Since I didn't join for the money, and since I was still living at home and the money was but a fringe benefit, I could afford to have that attitude.  Others don't, and many rely upon their earnings to support their way of life (which includes such "trivial" things as food, shelter, clothing, etc).  Yet, as you know, we serve for more than that.  You know it, and I know it.  If you were to turn down a deployment because you felt hard done by due to the economy, tell that not to me, but to the workers who were laid off in the hundreds of thousands over the past year or so.  And tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Haitians who so desperately need our help now.  So, if you can say that to them, with a straight face and without feeling a "twinge", then maybe it's time to hang up the hat, release, and open a spot for someone else to fill.
> 
> And have a nice day.



Filled by whom?

I'd rather keep a somewhat bitter ex-class B with a wealth of experience on the rolls as a class A than bump somebody else up to section commander to replace him. If he's an asset to the organization, and isn't overwhelmed by the milk of human kindness to go do disaster relief somewhere he doesn't believe we have a stake, losing him isn't a good thing.

If he's bitter to the point where he's not helping with training or admin, fair enough, but that's not a given. People are displeased with the budget choices that were made, and they're going to be less disposed towards making themselves available for taskings. I don't think they're wrong to feel that way.

Enough good folks release after a tour, and I wouldn't want to see more than necessary.


----------



## Grunt_031

Haiti will just add to the pain for the DND budget. It is the right thing to do but there will be a cost.

*Only thing Canada's reservists need cut is some slack*

Christie Blatchford

Published on Monday, Jan. 18, 2010 7:32PM EST Last updated on Monday, Jan. 18, 2010 7:49PM EST

Sergeant George Miok, Sergeant Kirk Taylor and Corporal Zachery McCormack – three of the young soldiers who were killed, along with Private Garrett Chidley and Canadian journalist Michelle Lang, in a massive roadside bomb late last year – have all been laid to rest.

What these three had in common, which has received remarkably little notice – they were all reservists, or part-time soldiers.

Sgt. Miok, who was also a teacher, was a member of 41 Combat Engineer Regiment, a reserve unit based in Edmonton; Sgt. Taylor's home unit was the 84 Independent Field Battery in Yarmouth, N.S., and Corp. McCormack was an “Eddie,” a member of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, a storied infantry unit.

I didn't know any of them but experience tells me they would have been as fiercely proud of their real units as Pte. Chidley was of being a member of the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

In Afghanistan, reservists are usually attached as individuals to the battle group, and when they are killed overseas, their reserve identities are usually subsumed by the larger regiment – officially referred to, if at all, only obliquely, as in, “based in Yarmouth” or “from Edmonton.”

Yet throughout Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, reservists have been there. They have given lives and limbs, just as the regulars have. Every roto to Kandahar has had at least 300 reservists (out of a total of about 2,500 soldiers) and some as many as 500-plus. They do the same jobs and take the same risks as their full-time counterparts and, once deployed, are also paid the same and receive the same benefits. Some of them have to take unpaid leave from civilian jobs, or put promising careers on the shelf, for the privilege of going.

Yet traditionally, when budget push comes to shove, the reserves take a harder hit than the regular force – chiefly because, where in the regular force wages come from a separate envelope of funds, in the militia it's all of a single piece, so when you cut reserve dollars you're cutting training, bullets, travel, pay and people. Thus, what purports to be suffering dispersed equally in fact isn't.

It's happening again, and was even as those three young men were buried this month.

According to what Brigadier-General John Collin, the commander of Joint Task Force Central Area (it means Ontario), has been saying at town hall meetings across the province, the army is looking to chop 5,000 reservists.

The cuts are completely at odds with the government's stated position that both the regular army and the reserves are to grow as part of the Canada First defence strategy, and raise the question: If Ottawa has been giving the army the money to grow, what the heck has the army been doing with it?

The key cuts are being made to what are called “Class B” contracts, those reservists who hold full-time jobs, many in training positions.

As Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Blair McGregor told me recently in a furious note, “reserve units are being stripped of the full-time support staff that is so desperately needed to train the part-time soldiers we rely on.” Lt.-Col. McGregor was until 2008 the Commanding Officer of the Seaforth Highlanders in Vancouver, home unit of Captain Trevor Greene, who was axed in the head and nearly killed while serving in Afghanistan in 2006.

But the cuts aren't stopping there, and they appear to be deeper than first quietly announced in November.

According to Lt.-Col. McGregor, John Selkirk of Reserves 2000 (a group formed to fight for the militia) and others contacted by The Globe and Mail, contracts for Afghanistan-deploying reservists have been cut by a month, reservists who have put civilian lives on hold are having theirs cancelled at the last minute and training budgets are being slashed, with training in some units cut to a half-night a week.

The cuts are also being applied to recruiting, with the next recruit classes in some units cut by more than half. As Mr. Selkirk, the former honorary colonel of the Brockville Rifles, says, “That's the difference between growing and probably shrinking.”

And reserve units, once shrunk, are then vulnerable to government pressure to amalgamate with other units.

“I haven't seen it this bad since the late 1980s, '90s,” says one non-commissioned officer at an Ontario reserve unit; this, remember, was the period that former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier described as “the decade of darkness.”

As Lt.-Col. McGregor says, “The militia regiments that have stood the test of time … are being threatened with starvation in order to make ends meet. Without a force generator like the reserve regiments, our Canadian Forces will be very hard-pressed to make the contribution that is required.…we know from the historic record that there is always another emergency around the corner.”

(He wrote that before the earthquake flattened Haiti, a country with which Canada has strong ties. If the army wasn't overstretched before, it will be now.)

The truth is that the reserves and its citizen soldiers have always been unappreciated by the bureaucracy at the Department of National Defence and sometimes by government.

To Lt.-Col. McGregor, the reserves should function for the regular army as the junior leagues do for the National Hockey League. Yet Canada is one of the few countries in the world where the army reserves are smaller than the regular army. This makes no sense, he says. “There should likely be a 2:1 or 3:1 reserves to regular force ratio.

“A further truth about the reserve army is that you can't rip it apart and then easily or quickly rebuild it later when you need it. As in the hockey analogy, each hockey team in any league has a first, second and third line and each team has leadership in the form of a coach, manager, captain and several assistant captains.

“And soldiers,” he says, “like to belong to cohesive and proud organizations and in Canada these are called regiments. They are the ‘teams' on which soldiers exist.”

In the national game, anyone who doesn't perform is swiftly fired. Canada's soldiers, reservists included, have performed beyond expectations. Would that the same could be said of those who make these maddening and shabby decisions.


----------



## Osotogari

I hope that this is just temporary until the fiscal year starts on 1 April.  Either way, it looks like there won't be much for March madness this year.  If this persists into the next fiscal year then I honestly people should get their honoraries involved.  After all, if after the last eight years of operations, the powers that be at area HQs and higher can't or won't understand the importance of the reserves than they never will.  

The reserves always seem to get it in the neck first.  I was hoping but not expecting that the reserve force would no longer be considered by people in area and higher as a threat to their little empires.  It's obvious that we've gotten too uppity for our own good what with our disproportionate contribution to operations and training over the last few years.  Couldn't have seen this coming.


----------



## 4Feathers

What is happening right now with all this penny pinching is a travesty, and kudo's to Kristie Blatchford for writing that article.  Not only are we technically "at war" we are also involved in mounting a major humanitarian mission, and yet our political leaders treat us like this. Shame on the government.


----------



## Scottish_Mom

Well, I just dashed off an email to my member of parliament asking for a review of this situation. Shameful......


----------



## OldSolduer

Its not just the government, its some of our own hacking and slashing.


----------



## toughenough

Christie Blatchford said:
			
		

> ... training in some units cut to a half-night a week ...



I hate to split hairs here, but try 2 half days "training" between 2 Dec 09 and "Aprilish". And that's pending the next budget does not give us more of the same. A half night a week might actually be enough to keep some of the skill fade off.

Not to mention the LFCA Cmdr expects to have 6 Coys of PRes ready for the G20 Summit. That's an accident waiting to happen. Not training is one thing, expecting people who aren't training to perform with the world's eyes on them is another.


----------



## aesop081

toughenough said:
			
		

> Not training is one thing, expecting people who aren't training to perform with the world's eyes on them is another.



A situation that, i assure you, is not limited to the reserves.


----------



## McG

> *MILITARY SUPPORT *
> Only thing reservists need cut is some slack Even in the wake of recent deaths, budgets to train and recruit our part-time soldiers are being slashed
> Christie Blatchford
> Globe and Mail
> 19 Jan 2010
> 
> Sergeant George Miok, Sergeant Kirk Taylor and Corporal Zachery McCormack - three of the young soldiers who were killed, along with Private Garrett Chidley and Canadian journalist Michelle Lang, in a massive roadside bomb late last year - have all been laid to rest.
> 
> What these three had in common, which has received remarkably little notice - they were all reservists, or part-time soldiers.
> 
> Sgt. Miok, who was also a teacher, was a member of 41 Combat Engineer Regiment, a reserve unit based in Edmonton; Sgt. Taylor's home unit was the 84 Independent Field Battery in Yarmouth, N.S., and Corp.
> 
> McCormack was an "Eddie," a member of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, a storied infantry unit.
> 
> I didn't know any of them but experience tells me they would have been as fiercely proud of their real units as Pte. Chidley was of being a member of the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.
> 
> In Afghanistan, reservists are usually attached as individuals to the battle group, and when they are killed overseas, their reserve identities are usually subsumed by the larger regiment - officially referred to, if at all, only obliquely, as in, "based in Yarmouth" or "from Edmonton." Yet throughout Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, reservists have been there. They have given lives and limbs, just as the regulars have. Every roto to Kandahar has had at least 300 reservists (out of a total of about 2,500 soldiers) and some as many as 500-plus.
> 
> They do the same jobs and take the same risks as their full-time counterparts and, once deployed, are also paid the same and receive the same benefits. Some of them have to take unpaid leave from civilian jobs, or put promising careers on the shelf, for the privilege of going.
> 
> Yet traditionally, when budget push comes to shove, the reserves take a harder hit than the regular force - chiefly because, where in the regular force wages come from a separate envelope of funds, in the militia it's all of a single piece, so when you cut reserve dollars you're cutting training, bullets, travel, pay and people.
> 
> Thus, what purports to be suffering dispersed equally in fact isn't.
> 
> It's happening again, and was even as those three young men were buried this month.
> 
> According to what Brigadier-General John Collin, the commander of Joint Task Force Central Area (it means Ontario), has been saying at town hall meetings across the province, the army is looking to chop 5,000 reservists.
> 
> The cuts are completely at odds with the government's stated position that both the regular army and the reserves are to grow as part of the Canada First defence strategy, and raise the question: If Ottawa has been giving the army the money to grow, what the heck has the army been doing with it? The key cuts are being made to what are called "Class B" contracts, those reservists who hold full-time jobs, many in training positions.
> 
> As Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Blair McGregor told me recently in a furious note, "reserve units are being stripped of the full-time support staff that is so desperately needed to train the part-time soldiers we rely on." Lt.-Col. McGregor was until 2008 the Commanding Officer of the Seaforth Highlanders in Vancouver, home unit of Captain Trevor Greene, who was axed in the head and nearly killed while serving in Afghanistan in 2006.
> 
> But the cuts aren't stopping there, and they appear to be deeper than first quietly announced in November.
> 
> According to Lt.-Col. McGregor, John Selkirk of Reserves 2000 (a group formed to fight for the militia) and others contacted by The Globe and Mail, contracts for Afghanistan-deploying reservists have been cut by a month, reservists who have put civilian lives on hold are having theirs cancelled at the last minute and training budgets are being slashed, with training in some units cut to a half-night a week.
> 
> The cuts are also being applied to recruiting, with the next recruit classes in some units cut by more than half. As Mr. Selkirk, the former honorary colonel of the Brockville Rifles, says, "That's the difference between growing and probably shrinking." And reserve units, once shrunk, are then vulnerable to government pressure to amalgamate with other units.
> 
> "I haven't seen it this bad since the late 1980s, '90s," says one non-commissioned officer at an Ontario reserve unit; this, remember, was the period that former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier described as "the decade of darkness." As Lt.-Col. McGregor says, "The militia regiments that have stood the test of time . . . are being threatened with starvation in order to make ends meet. Without a force generator like the reserve regiments, our Canadian Forces will be very hard-pressed to make the contribution that is required. . . .we know from the historic record that there is always another emergency around the corner." (He wrote that before the earthquake flattened Haiti, a country with which Canada has strong ties. If the army wasn't overstretched before, it will be now.) The truth is that the reserves and its citizen soldiers have always been unappreciated by the bureaucracy at the Department of National Defence and sometimes by government.
> 
> To Lt.-Col. McGregor, the reserves should function for the regular army as the junior leagues do for the National Hockey League. Yet Canada is one of the few countries in the world where the army reserves are smaller than the regular army. This makes no sense, he says.
> 
> "There should likely be a 2:1 or 3:1 reserves to regular force ratio.
> 
> "A further truth about the reserve army is that you can't rip it apart and then easily or quickly rebuild it later when you need it. As in the hockey analogy, each hockey team in any league has a first, second and third line and each team has leadership in the form of a coach, manager, captain and several assistant captains.
> 
> "And soldiers," he says, "like to belong to cohesive and proud organizations and in Canada these are called regiments. They are the 'teams' on which soldiers exist." In the national game, anyone who doesn't perform is swiftly fired.
> 
> Canada's soldiers, reservists included, have performed beyond expectations.
> 
> Would that the same could be said of those who make these maddening and shabby decisions.


I suppose the NHL/Farm-team analogy comes a little short in the sense that the NHL skims the cream of the top of the farm teams while the population transfering from reserves to regular force represents a whole cross section of the reserves.  Same is true of the population of reserves augmenting regular force operations.  The farmteam is the proving ground to make it to the big league; there is no similar thing for the military.  

The vast majority of Class B cutting should be done in higher HQs and regular force establishments (where the impacts would actually be harder on the regular force).


----------



## Red Hackle

I'm pretty ticked off with this direction. I suggest we all write to the Prime Minister as I have on this matter. pm@pm.gc.ca 

I've seen this before and I'm getting tired of it,  every time we make a bit of head way.....slash.


----------



## Fusaki

While I appreciate Ms. Blatchford's long standing support for the CF, I can't help but think that this one is a little off the mark.

I'm a reservist, and I see the effect our financial troubles have had at the PL/COY level.  I can't lie, it really does suck.  But given there's only limited funds to go around, what can be done about it? Someone up top set priorities and made a budget, presumably based on the greater needs of the CF and Canada as a whole.  You can't fault a guy for that.

My impression of Ms. Blatchford's article is that she thinks the PRes is somehow being done wrong.  I understand the situation differently.  My impression is that the CF as a whole is under-funded, and because of that the PRes are taking a hit for the team.


----------



## Larkvall

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Someone up top set priorities and made a budget, presumably based on the greater needs of the CF and Canada as a whole.  You can't fault a guy for that.



Courses have been cancelled midstream and at the last minute. This sounds more like lack of planning rather than lack of funds. Something you can fault a guy for.


----------



## armyvern

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Courses have been cancelled midstream and at the last minute. This sounds more like lack of planning rather than lack of funds. Something you can fault a guy for.



Which guys you going to blame?

The recruiters who met their target numbers admirably? Or all those forecasted releasers who failed to pull the pin due to the recession? Both circumstances, coupled with the recession have led to what we're seeing today. 

Hard to blame the bean counter who did up a budget based on forecasted numbers and dollar values he was handed well before the recession set in. And, most guys getting out do so at end calendar year (ie in the fall!) or beginning of next calendar year for taxation purposes ... making it unknown until the fall & early new year that they actually are NOT getting out of the CF as historicly forecast; for that is when it becomes obvious that there's a need to double up the SWE to ensure troops are actually paid when those guys don't get out ... .


----------



## Larkvall

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Which guys you going to blame?
> 
> The recruiters who met their target numbers admirably? Or all those forecasted releasers who failed to pull the pin due to the recession? Both circumstances, coupled with the recession have led to what we're seeing today.
> 
> Hard to blame the bean counter who did up a budget based on forecasted numbers and dollar values he was handed well before the recession set in. And, most guys getting out do so at end calendar year (ie in the fall!) or beginning of next calendar year for taxation purposes ... making it unknown until the fall & early new year that they actually are NOT getting out of the CF as historicly forecast; for that is when it becomes obvious that there's a need to double up the SWE to ensure troops are actually paid when those guys don't get out ... .



I am leaving the blame game for others. 

The recession started in the fall of 2008, long before the 2009 fiscal year started. The recruiting numbers are at people's finger tips. I bet historically people didn't get out during past recessions. It was predictable.


----------



## aesop081

Larkvall said:
			
		

> I am leaving the blame game for others.



Isn't it fun to be able to armchair quarterback everything from the small world of a Pte(R) ?


----------



## Larkvall

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Isn't it fun to be able to armchair quarterback everything from the small world of a Pte(R) ?



Well it might fun except I know people who have been hurt by this from Private Recruits to Master Corporals. I don't need to play the blame game because if the people who screwed up don't see their errors then they certainly aren't going to listen to me.


----------



## armyvern

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Well it might fun except I know people who have been hurt by this from Private Recruits to Master Corporals. I don't need to play the blame game because if the people who screwed up don't see their errors then they certainly aren't going to listen to me.



Lest there be any doubt, everyone is hurting because of this. Reg F and Res F and, seemingly, the ResF is bearing a great big portion of the fallout. 

I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you really do think there exists a "person X" to blame for it all. I'm sure the recruiters would have performed 'worse' had their ESP been working and had they known that all those RegF pers who were forecast to pull pin actually did. I'm also quite sure that all those RegF guys would have pulled pin had their own ESP been working and they been privvy to the fallout that their collective "non-release" actions would have upon the budget; Likewise the bean counters if their ESP had been working; likewise had the recession fairy forecast the requirement for double SWE envelope etc etc ...

There simply is no ONE (or even a few) people to blame. No one pulled this shit on purpose. Time and circumstances all contributed. It sucks. It sucks badly. There's a whole lot of Canadians suffering job loses right now. Could our job loses (I mean in the way of hiring freeze, B Class etc) been handled differently --- I'm sure there are "fatty areas" that could have been cut first and *should have * been cut first. But I don't think there's any one person to blame for the CF ending up having had to have someone "choose" (seemingly very badly) to make any/the cuts that they did.


----------



## aesop081

Larkvall said:
			
		

> I don't need to play the blame game



Oh but you have. You do it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It is easy for you to say "it was predictable" knowing how events turnd out. Yet, as a Pte(R) i doubt you are made aware of all the issues decision makers had to wrestle with, i know i'm not.



> if the people who screwed up don't see their errors then they certainly aren't going to listen to me.



You saying they screwed up does not make it so. I am also not prepared to accept that you would have done any better or that things would be better if "they" magicaly listened to you.

You point the finger at "they" with only a very, very small piece of the puzzle to base it on.


----------



## CountDC

Larkvall said:
			
		

> I am leaving the blame game for others.
> 
> The recession started in the fall of 2008, long before the 2009 fiscal year started. The recruiting numbers are at people's finger tips. I bet historically people didn't get out during past recessions. It was predictable.



and you call that leaving the blame game to others??

almost forgot - the fall of 08 was not long before the 09 fiscal year started.  You obviously have no concept of how government and military budgetting works.

Instead of betting historically why don't you check the figures.   Assuming is so easy.  For example - I can assume that in the past they still got out because they had their 20/25 years pension and/or reached CRA.  Now CRA has changed, pension time has changed, the recession was worse than the experts predicted in 08 so people decided to ride it through.  Is this true?  Don't have the slightest idea just like you.

I do know that budget planning for 2011 is being started by some people already even though the 2010 fiscal year hasn't started.  For some  the process is now looking at years down the road. Unfortunately the Reserves are the easiest place to do quick cuts as it is a lot easier to cut a class b posn than it is to release a reg f member.  Ships need to sail, planes need to fly, soldiers need their supplies and everyone better get paid.

As you like 20/20 hindsight - historically reserves get the kick in the balls everytime the CF needs to save money so I guess the reserves should have seen this coming and done their own planning accordingly.


----------



## Remius

CountDC said:
			
		

> As you like 20/20 hindsight - historically reserves get the kick in the balls everytime the CF needs to save money so I guess the reserves should have seen this coming and done their own planning accordingly.



I really hope that was sarcasm.


----------



## Steel Badger

CountDC said:
			
		

> - historically reserves get the kick in the balls everytime the CF needs to save money so I guess the reserves should have seen this coming and done their own planning accordingly.



An appropriate comment given some of the thoughts expressed in this thread. This surely isn't the first time cuts or "adjustments" have greatly impacted the Pres.

The first time I went through this though, we had "pink" pay sheets.... Unit's kept their integrity by continuing to parade, train and conduct FTX's on the strength of the promissary notes ( for younger members pink paysheets covered a member for training but meant that you would only recieve money for that training someday, if ever....)

While the backlash against pink paysheets was understandable ( asking soldiers to do something for nothing, and certainly many of my era recieved nothing from it); removing the voluntary service option has hamstrung the present PRES.    

Any formed activity runs into the legality issues answered by the old pink pay sheets..... 
My troops want to train, want to contribute their bit to the CF....

My challenge is how to allow them to do it legally.......


----------



## Journeyman

> Defence Department spokeswoman Kathleen Guillot [says] "Budget adjustments are not budget cuts."


She's correct, at the Departmental level. 
But to the many units that have had the funds "adjusted" out of their budget, it most certainly is a cut. 

Public Affairs can put all the lipstick they want on that pig; it's still a pig


----------



## Larkvall

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You saying they screwed up does not make it so. I am also not prepared to accept that you would have done any better or that things would be better if "they" magicaly listened to you.
> 
> You point the finger at "they" with only a very, very small piece of the puzzle to base it on.



Sure I only have a small piece of the puzzle. That is why I am leaving the blame game for others.

Look when a passenger jet crashes into a subdivision I say that is a problem. But I am going to leave it those who are qualified to get to the bottom of it.

So when the CF is broke at 3/4 of the way through the fiscal year I am saying that is a problem. I am still going to leave it those who are qualified to get to the bottom of it. But I am just not buying the whole higher recruiting/higher retention argument.


----------



## Larkvall

CountDC said:
			
		

> As you like 20/20 hindsight - historically reserves get the kick in the balls everytime the CF needs to save money so I guess the reserves should have seen this coming and done their own planning accordingly.



You have a point. Most Canadians don't believe what comes out of Ottawa. Why should the Reserves?

I apologize for this comment. It's probably out of line.


----------



## CountDC

Crantor said:
			
		

> I really hope that was sarcasm.



Of course. As I believe Vern already pointed out - no one really saw this coming. 

 If we all were able to predict the future as some seem to believe then it would be a valid statement.  Although it is true that the reserves get it everytime there are budget juggles during peace time who really expected it to happen during a war??  I didn't expect any substantial changes until after things were done with.  Then I figured we would see the class b cuts that are happening along with some reg f posns. That is historical - war time - increase military, peace time - cut the military.

Steel Badger - remember those days well..  IMO it would be great if they could come up with something for those that want to volunteer their time but the problem would then be keeping units from abusing it and pressing members to volunteer just so they could stretch the budget.

Journeyman:  The departmental level is what Public Affairs is dealing with so it is not a matter of putting lipstick on it.  These are adjustments, happened in the past and will happen in the future - all part of the fun of budgets.  Funny how no one complains when they receive extra money due to budget adjustments (other than the clerk doing the budget).

In 97 when they did a major cut to reserve Cl B's the sympathy we got verbally was:  The reserves are meant to be a part-time volunteer force to back up the reg f when needed.  It is not a full time job or career and if you chose to treat it as such that is your problem (of course they didn't put that in our letters).  12 years later and back to it again.  Guess it is true that some things never change.


----------



## gcclarke

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Sure I only have a small piece of the puzzle. That is why I am leaving the blame game for others.
> 
> Look when a passenger jet crashes into a subdivision I say that is a problem. But I am going to leave it those who are qualified to get to the bottom of it.
> 
> So when the CF is broke at 3/4 of the way through the fiscal year I am saying that is a problem. I am still going to leave it those who are qualified to get to the bottom of it. But I am just not buying the whole higher recruiting/higher retention argument.



It's a bit of a stretch to say that the CF is broke 3/4 of the way through the fiscal year. As was stated earlier, the Department of National Defence hasn't had its budget cut, but is dealing with higher than anticipated costs due to lower than anticipated attrition. As far as I'm aware, the various Level 1s (CLS, CAS, CMS, the dot COMs, various ADMs) haven't had their budgets meddled with excessively. 

It's mostly just the Army reserve units that are currently broke, along with the CFRG, who is cutting back all processing to ROTP applicants only until April. The rest of the CF is dealing with their monetary adjustments by cutting things like sailing days, flying hours, some training, or just making do with less. Unfortunately, for those units in a stand-down, they were deemed to be either the easiest way, best way, or some combination thereof to balance the CLS's budget. 

Is it a problem? Yes. Is it a disaster? No. Will we likely lose some good people over this issue? Yes. But considering that this problem was caused by the fact that we currently have too many people to pay, this would have happened anyways. It's just a matter of who would have "lost" those people. 

An unfortunate situation arose, which forced some senior personnel to make some tough decisions. No matter what choice was made to fix this situation, people somewhere would have been unhappy. I'm sorry that you're unhappy with the choice that was made. But I can't really fault the people who made those choices without knowing what the alternatives were.


----------



## Journeyman

CountDC said:
			
		

> Journeyman:  The departmental level is what Public Affairs is dealing with so it is not a matter of putting lipstick on it.


Yes, but the troops on the armoury floor aren't working at the Department level. It sure looks like a cut to them.


----------



## Remius

Ok, I'd like to know where people are getting this about us having too many people to pay?  I haven't seen anything about this.  The town hall meetings and briefings I attended seemed to indicate that the money needed to be adjusted to cover off capital expenditures and new purchases.  I find it hard to believe that the CF is over its established limit.  I also have a hard time believing that the amount of surplus people we have in the CF amounts to 190 million dollars at first then 233 million more.   It maybe a contributing factor (as are a great many things). The impression was that we all went a little hogwild and there were not enough checks and balances in place.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> My impression of Ms. Blatchford's article is that she thinks the PRes is somehow being done wrong.  I understand the situation differently.  My impression is that the CF as a whole is under-funded, and because of that the PRes are taking a hit for the team.



I disagree with your assessment.  The reserves are indeed being hard done by.  I realize that this is not by some deliberate master design, but they are being hard done by never the less.

As we all know, many reservists have served in Afghanistan at this point, and now, they are thanked with having their jobs suspended and taken away.  Which has other side effects, potentially denying them of their support networks and peers.  I realize that they all have the freedom to hook up with one another outside of work, but that is not the point.  Parading weekly, and training, and interacting professionally with peers, in my humble opinion would be a necessary element for those returning home.

From another angle, we can all agree that the army relies on the reserves way too much.  Well, this is certainly no way to treat a partner that you rely on to succeed.  Granted it is not necessarily the army's fault, but at the end of the day, the amount of money that would be needed to keep reserve training going, is peanuts in the overall government budget.  The money should have been found.  The consequences of not finding that money, are simply too high a price to pay.  The government should not be allowing this to happen.


----------



## armyvern

Crantor said:
			
		

> Ok, I'd like to know where people are getting this about us having too many people to pay?  I haven't seen anything about this.  The town hall meetings and briefings I attended seemed to indicate that the money needed to be adjusted to cover off capital expenditures and new purchases.  I find it hard to believe that the CF is over its established limit.  I also have a hard time believing that the amount of surplus people we have in the CF amounts to 190 million dollars at first then 233 million more.   It maybe a contributing factor (as are a great many things). The impression was that we all went a little hogwild and there were not enough checks and balances in place.



The bit about the pers and wages came from a statement I made here ... which also included the phrase "coupled with the recession" ... which came directly from the briefing that I got from a CFRG higher-up. THEY have cut recruiting because "we" are at our numbers and ergo they have to find money to "pay" those we've got already. Apparently, you may also be surprised to find out just how much SWE actually does cost in relation to proportion of budget ... Sorry that you weren't in _that_ CFRG briefing with me, but I wasn't in the LFCA Comd's town hall either ... 

No one here has cited that as "the cause of this mess", that brief is only ONE of the factors affecting our current situation, "coupled with" the recession (thus higher costs the CF is now incurring for purchases etc), also coupled with the CFs being required to comply with "Canada First" ... ALL of which have been discussed here in this thread.

There are MANY factors that involve unforecasted, but now-higher costs to maintain daily ops and contracts put in place ... which causes money to have to be "adjusted" from one budget area to "another" in order to pay costs that we have *zero choice but to incur*; therefore, costs "not actually contracted to" that are only "would be nice to incur" (non-essential trg etc <--- not that I believe that ResF trg is non-essential per se, I rather believe the opposite. Someone obviously feels that it is a lower priority though) lose out.

No one here has said that any ONE of those things caused this mess, they have all "contributed" to the situation we are now dealing with --- and thus why no-one is to blame in particular --- way too many contributing factors in too many areas of the CF --- with no single pers/element of oversight who could have predicted all these contributing factors occuring at the same time. 

Edited to fix "LFCA Comd"


----------



## Fusaki

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I disagree with your assessment.  The reserves are indeed being hard done by.  I realize that this is not by some deliberate master design, but they are being hard done by never the less...
> 
> The money should have been found.  The consequences of not finding that money, are simply too high a price to pay.  The government should not be allowing this to happen.



Maybe I just wasn't clear on what I meant "done wrong".

There is no doubt that the PRes is important and that PRes soldiers have served admirably in Afghanistan. My point is simply that they (we) can't treat this "re-allocation of funds" to be a personal insult.

You can make a case that other areas of the CF should have been cut first, for the reasons you mentioned:  It's important for guys returning home to have a job they can come back to and re-integrate, and also that the PRes is of too vital a role to cut deeply into.  But if this is the case, it would only be as result of bad management - not to be taken as a disrespect to those who've served in Afghanistan.


----------



## McG

Crantor said:
			
		

> The town hall meetings and briefings I attended seemed to indicate that the money needed to be adjusted to cover off capital expenditures and new purchases.


I've wondered about this line every time I hear it.  As I understand things, we cannot legally move money between Vote 1 and Vote 5.  Not at the CLS level, not at the VCDS level, and not at the DM level.  There are, as I am told, ways to move this money at the MND level but only in quantities that are small relative to the budget as a whole.


----------



## PanaEng

Can't wait to read the next Auditor General's report on DND and the CF...
The last one was quite critical of the financial/project management in certain areas.

I like the saying "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"

on another note, I found it quit funny that someone here dismissed the opinion of someone else because of the information on his profile - something like "what would a Pte (R) know about this"
For all we know this Pte(R) may be an accountant or have more knowledge about financial management than the critic.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## armyvern

PanaEng said:
			
		

> For all we know this Pte(R) may be an accountant or have more knowledge about financial management than the critic.



Ahhh yes, but then an accountant would also be aware of a much bigger picture and all the bits and pieces at play and would be very careful not to 'judge' a small single bit without having the 'knowns' of the whole.


----------



## DBF

Crantor said:
			
		

> Ok, I'd like to know where people are getting this about us having too many people to pay?


1600 troops too many already, general says

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2217536

1600 x $47232 (Pte(R) plus 50% for benefits) = $75.5 million.  That would explain a fair amount of the army's share (of the adjustments) of $80 million.  Just a guess.  :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows

$80M is quite a bit short of $423M.  I sure would like to know how things got out of whack so much, so quickly, so late in the year without being addressed sooner.  Life isn't a parody of an IAs and Stoppages lecture: "budget on track, budget on track, budget on track...$423M to make up!"


----------



## Baloo

I haven't read all 30+ pages of the discussion, though I have tried to keep up. 

And it has been awhile since last posting.

So bear with me. And I am not complaining (maybe...), just trying to add some thoughts that others may have already noted. My unit, like many others, have lost a significant portion of 'Class B' reservists. Again, like many others, troops who have been slated for work-up training have had their involvement overseas cancelled, due to budgetary reasons, alledgedly. Summer courses, etc., gone. We want to talk about retention, I just don't see how this is going to be possible. With a lack of funded training dates, heck, not only are we going to lose out on soldiers, but how about the inevitable skill-fade that will accompany? 

As a junior leader, I honestly feel as though we are failing our soldiers. Whether it is as a result of loss of employment, pay, whatever, we are losing significantly on this deal. And I don't necessarily know how to address this, so I'm just adding to the fire without contributing, I get that. 

But how do we have senior leadership at these town hall meetings, addressing legitimate concerns of soldiers losing their livelihoods with a simple "join the Regular Force," especially when component transferring can take up to and including a year in some cases, or when the battalions are full? What then? What sort of answers are we giving other than some, on this very forum, that say "well, its happened before, we should suck it up?"


----------



## armyvern

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> $80M is quite a bit short of $423M.  I sure would like to know how things got out of whack so much, so quickly, so late in the year without being addressed sooner.  Life isn't a parody of an IAs and Stoppages lecture: "budget on track, budget on track, budget on track...$423M to make up!"



80 mil is the "short end" of the stick. That's for the Pte(R) that were recruited ... and includes only the 1600 infantry overage. Those 1600 were recruited 'early in the year' to replace the forecasted (and the expected bell-curve of un-forecasted) realeases from those of sometimes much higher rank levels and paygrades.

With those higher-paygrade pers they were to replace not having pulled pin in the expected numbers (largely due to the recession) "the expected reduction in SWE payout" - didn't happen. They expected to pay those Pte(R)s ... they didn't expect to have to continue paying the higher rank levels those recruits were brought in to replace. Thus the dollar figure differential is actually much higher.

Pers pulling pin usually put in their release paperwork late in the year and pull pin early in the New year for tax purposes ... that didn't happen as predicted in the numbers predicted ... and no one knew that was going to occur until that expected paperwork didn't come in as it usually does every fall.

ESP is everything --- if you believe in it. Alas all one can do is work with forecasts and historical data in an attempt to predict things. This year, there's a whole lot of people that would have had to have the ESP to see a whole lot of things that all occured at once in a wide variety of areas of budget (and to have known what was going on in totally unrelated budget areas too) to have had a hope of avoiding this mess unfortunately.  :-\

I don't like the solution that was found in an attempt to solve it any more than anyone else does.


----------



## Occam

This got buried in another thread; I think it's pertinent here.  I won't post the entire contents of the article, but there's a passage which I was surprised to read:

_Guillot pointed out the Defence Department has seen overall budget growth of about 50 per cent in the last seven years. The 2009-2010 budget is about $21 billion.

Those figures were noted in a report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, done in conjunction with the Rideau Institute, which determined defence accounted for nearly 10 per cent of all federal spending. After adjusting for inflation, Canadian military spending this year was up 9.6 per cent compared to last year and is 15-per-cent higher than Canada's defence spending at the peak of the Cold War in 1952-1953, the report said.

"DND is right to say this isn't a cutback as their budget grew this year by almost a billion dollars," said Bill Robinson, the report's author.

"I'd be surprised to see this government making sharp cuts to the military."_


----------



## Jarnhamar

We could start by not paying $120 for a $21 cleaning kit....just saying.


----------



## armyvern

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> We could start by not paying $120 for a $21 cleaning kit....just saying.



I'd absolutely agree with you on that.

Now, if we can convince the Feds & Treasury Board that the Financial Administration Act should be tossed aside (or that we should not have to abide by it) we may have a hope of saving some bucks. 

However, I'm sure they'd then just counter-argue that doing such a thing would just be robbing from Peter to pay Paul though because the opponents would be convinced that no Canadian companies would then win any contracts ... thus we'd (the CF)save by buying elsewhere vice having to take an over-inflated bid cost/item, but that that another Fed dept would just then have to pay those workers from those companies their monthly pogey or welfare cheque.  :-\


----------



## aesop081

PanaEng said:
			
		

> For all we know this Pte(R) may be an accountant or have more knowledge about financial management than the critic.



Utterly irrelevant. He could be the CEO of Widget &Co and still not have a clue of the issues DND has to deal with at the higher levels.

I sure as heck dont and i've been doing this for quite some time. Thankfully i got introduced to some of these issues by the division comptroller so my eyes were opened by those who know.

The point being that not one single poster here is privy to all the details that went into these decisions and thus saying that it was avoidable and that "they" fucked up" is nothing more than passing judgement based on less than all the facts.


----------



## Larkvall

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Can't wait to read the next Auditor General's report on DND and the CF...
> The last one was quite critical of the financial/project management in certain areas.



YES!!! Sheila Fraser!!!! Champion of justice!!!

Here is the email for the Auditor General. According to website they will phone you within 15 days if you leave a name and number in your email.

communications@oag-bvg.gc.ca


----------



## CountDC

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I disagree with your assessment.  The reserves are indeed being hard done by.  I realize that this is not by some deliberate master design, but they are being hard done by never the less.
> 
> As we all know, many reservists have served in Afghanistan at this point, and now, they are thanked with having their jobs suspended and taken away.  Which has other side effects, potentially denying them of their support networks and peers.  I realize that they all have the freedom to hook up with one another outside of work, but that is not the point.  Parading weekly, and training, and interacting professionally with peers, in my humble opinion would be a necessary element for those returning home.
> 
> From another angle, we can all agree that the army relies on the reserves way too much.  Well, this is certainly no way to treat a partner that you rely on to succeed.  Granted it is not necessarily the army's fault, but at the end of the day, the amount of money that would be needed to keep reserve training going, is peanuts in the overall government budget.  The money should have been found.  The consequences of not finding that money, are simply too high a price to pay.  The government should not be allowing this to happen.



now that I agree with. 

Not to knock the good samaritan effort but the government was quick enough to come up with the money and troops to help out in Haiti - they should have been able to come up with at least some of the extra cash for the military.


----------



## CountDC

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> $80M is quite a bit short of $423M.  I sure would like to know how things got out of whack so much, so quickly, so late in the year without being addressed sooner.  Life isn't a parody of an IAs and Stoppages lecture: "budget on track, budget on track, budget on track...$423M to make up!"



It only seems so quick because that is that part the public (and us) see.  In actual fact when you look at how Government and DND budget planning takes place it is a long process.  A general idea of a problem may have been known at the top months before it made its way through the system.  If you go MND, CDS, LFC, AREA, Brigade and add between 1 to 2 months at each level for "study, recommendations and decisions" you get a rough idea of how long things take.  We knew here that something was happening back in Apr when  told that we were not getting our budget until Jun.  Good hint that some how many failed to pick up on and continued to budget their activities based on money not received without building in a fudge factor.  As indicated by some posts, some units are doing better than others - I would wager this is because at some level someone did build in a fudge factor for them or they got lucky that the members didn't parade as much as planned.

For people looking for some one to blame for their situation - start by looking in the mirror and then carry on to every one in your chain of command right up to the PM because fault can be found at every point if you look hard enough.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> An unfortunate situation arose, which forced some senior personnel to make some tough decisions. No matter what choice was made to fix this situation, people somewhere would have been unhappy. I'm sorry that you're unhappy with the choice that was made. But I can't really fault the people who made those choices without knowing what the alternatives were.



I think people arent so angry at the fact that a hard choice had to be made, but more angry because they disagree with the choices made. As has been said in this thread, there are many other things people believe should have been cut, many more useless positions, than cutting peoples employment and income.


----------



## vonGarvin

Nero said:
			
		

> I think people arent so angry at the fact that a hard choice had to be made, but more angry because they disagree with the choices made. As has been said in this thread, *there are many other things people believe should have been cut* , many more useless positions, than cutting peoples employment and income.


What things?  What positions?


----------



## Larkvall

CountDC said:
			
		

> For people looking for some one to blame for their situation - start by looking in the mirror and then carry on to every one in your chain of command right up to the PM because fault can be found at every point if you look hard enough.



I am waiting to hear what Ms. Fraser has to say on the matter.


----------



## aesop081

Larkvall said:
			
		

> I am waiting to hear what Ms. Fraser has to say on the matter.




 :crybaby:

For you and everyone else who thinks that they got the shaft because ther are reservists.

Take a long look around. Air force YFR is being cut so us Regular force aviators get to feel the pain in a big way as well.

You are not the only ones so STFU.


----------



## Larkvall

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :crybaby:
> 
> For you and everyone else who thinks that they got the shaft because ther are reservists.
> 
> Take a long look around. Air force YFR is being cut so us Regular force aviators get to feel the pain in a big way as well.
> 
> You are not the only ones so STFU.



Don't worry, she will kick some ass for you too.


----------



## Remius

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You are not the only ones so STFU.



Nice.  No one is saying reservists are the only ones.  They just happen to be hit the hardest and in ways that affect them more profoundly.  For some it was their livelyhood (yes being on class b is a risk, but it still sucks to lose your job), others it's what they used to pay for school, rent etc.  Some took time off for work up training and are being told they aren't needed anymore.  Troops are planning alternative employment options as even their part time pay has vanished.   And to top it off there was no warning, nothing to say "hey, start making plans for jan-apr since we might not have funds to pay you".

Do you have any idea what cancelling BMQs midway will have on those units?  For some it will take years to recover from.   We'll be losing some good people as well.

Part of it has to do with how vague this all seems.   We're getting more money but we have to re-adjust here and there.  Could be because we have too many troops, could be because we have to buy more stuff.  Not really sure.  

So if you aren't happy with them venting, and being rightfully pissed, don't read this thread.

However, with the 320 million more in cuts on the way, I think that Army Reservists will see just how much the CF as a whole is going to end up sharing the brunt of these "readjustments".


----------



## COBRA-6

Technoviking said:
			
		

> What things?  What positions?



Oh there are metric ass loads of them. The bloat I see in Ottawa is just staggering. Everyone is very very busy, but soooo much of it is not usefull work. NDHQ has become such a self-licking ice cream cone that a huge amount of time and effort is spent on the left hand trying to figure out what the right hand is doing, usually unsuccessfully. 

The problem is that reforming the bureaucratic borg collective is a complex, difficult task. So many activities are interlinked/interdependant between the Lvl 1s it's hard to separate them. Trimming here and there is all that's possible without reforming the way the CF and Department as a whole does buisness. It honestly would be easier to burn NDHQ to the ground and start over. 

So what happens? We take the easy route and cut things like trg, maint, fuel, and people. 

Just my $0.02...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Hack the Reserves to buy combat vehicles.

Mmmmmm. Smells something like Bison. ;D


----------



## Remius

Technoviking said:
			
		

> What things?  What positions?



I'm still getting the Safety Digest...


----------



## aesop081

Crantor said:
			
		

> Do you have any idea what cancelling BMQs midway will have on those units?



Do you have any idea what significant cuts to flying hours do to operatinal flying units ?



> For some it will take years to recover from.



For some squadrons, it will take years to recover the experience levels and much effort to regain the skills that have to be put on the backburner.



> We'll be losing some good people as well.



Same everywhere. We will be losing alot of good flyers if we dont let them fly.



> Part of it has to do with how vague this all seems.



So vague in fact that some people here have managed to decide who was to blame. It is vague because people dont have all the facts but that hasnt stopped them from jumping to conclusions. 

It's a giant shit sandwich and we are all going to have to take a bite.


----------



## armyvern

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Oh there are metric ass loads of them. The bloat I see in Ottawa is just staggering. Everyone is very very busy, but soooo much of it is not usefull work. NDHQ has become such a self-licking ice cream cone that a huge amount of time and effort is spent on the left hand trying to figure out what the right hand is doing, usually unsuccessfully.
> 
> The problem is that reforming the bureaucratic borg collective is a complex, difficult task. So many activities are interlinked/interdependant between the Lvl 1s it's hard to separate them. Trimming here and there is all that's possible without reforming the way the CF and Department as a whole does buisness. It honestly would be easier to burn NDHQ to the ground and start over with a whole lot fewer dot com HQs to staff & support & pay for too.
> 
> So what happens? We take the easy route and cut things like trg, maint, fuel, and people.
> 
> Just my $0.02...



There. Now I think it perfectly reflects my thoughts too.  

You know, especially over the past 9 years or so when what we've *really* needed was boots on the ground vice in all the newer levels of HQ.

Anyone actually privy to or can provide a ref to a link to anything indicating how much the re-structuring of HQs and the addition of some dot coms has actually cost us in annual operating costs? I'd be willing to bet another pole dance that it hasn't 'saved' us anything on our budget.


----------



## bigcletus

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ahhh yes, but then an accountant would also be aware of a much bigger picture and all the bits and pieces at play and would be very careful not to 'judge' a small single bit without having the 'knowns' of the whole.



A Pte (R) could not have done a worse job on this whole farce.  Heads should roll on this, and those heads should be wearing maple leaves an cross-swords.


----------



## Remius

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Do you have any idea what significant cuts to flying hours do to operatinal flying units ?
> 
> For some squadrons, it will take years to recover the experience levels and much effort to regain the skills that have to be put on the backburner.
> 
> Same everywhere. We will be losing alot of good flyers if we dont let them fly.
> 
> So vague in fact that some people here have managed to decide who was to blame. It is vague because people dont have all the facts but that hasnt stopped them from jumping to conclusions.
> 
> It's a giant crap sandwich and we are all going to have to take a bite.



To answer your first question: No I don't.  So I can't comment on those effects.  I'm not minimising it though.  I'm sure the impact is significant.  But those flyers still get a pay cheque and can still pay their bills and rent.  Maybe they don't have to worry about tuition but 80% of reservists do.

Hopefully those flyers will stay on.  They have that choice.  The BMQ/PLQ candidates didn't.  Their courses were cancelled.  Units have lost a year's worth of intake.  No new blood.

If the top wasn't so vague and dismissive maybe the speculation wouldn't be as rampant.


----------



## bigcletus

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Don't worry, she will kick some *** for you too.



Oh ?? Did you lose your job too ??  Thought not...


----------



## blacktriangle

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It's a giant crap sandwich and we are all going to have to take a bite.



This pretty much sums it up. The only thing difference I see is that RegF pers will do so while still being employed. 

The Class B guys knew (or should have known) the risks, but it is pretty sad that Class A guys are having their already modest (and often only) incomes lost. Class A requires a person to show up, what, once a month as a minimum to stay on effective strength? The army should be forced to make a minimum committment to them as well, regardless of financial issues. 

I don't see why guaranteeing a parade night a week (roughly two days pay per month) would be such a tall order. It seems like the PRes has been told "if you want a full time job, go regs" and "if you want a part time job, go work at Mcdonalds". I agree with one but no so much the other.

Processing for ROTP is still on at full blast, so look out! The priority seems to be to have a fresh batch of Jnr Officers to fill NDHQ in the coming years.


----------



## COBRA-6

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Anyone actually privy to or can provide a ref to a link to anything indicating how much the re-structuring of HQs and the addition of some dot coms has actually cost us in annual operating costs? I'd be willing to bet another pole dance that it hasn't 'saved' us anything on our budget.



It's more likely we have no accurate idea as to the cost. There are two parallel initiatives going on right now that may shed some light on it; the Treasury Board driven Strategic Review and the internal Defence Force Structure Review that are looking into the CF/DND corporate world. I know people involved in both of these at several levels, the term "Chinese Fire Drill" comes to mind. Despite my cynicism I retain some hope that these reviews could be the vehicle for positive change. I may even create a voodoo shrine in my cubicle and make sacrifices to the gods of burocratic efficiency to help the process.


----------



## armyvern

Thanks Cobra6. I hope that your thoughts and hopes on this being a catalyst for posotive change are correct. You construct your voodoo shrine and I'll conjure up some of my _witchly_ capabilities to cast a big old spell ...


----------



## armyvern

bigcletus said:
			
		

> Oh ?? Did you lose your job too ??  Thought not...



Fuck. He's on your side. Perhaps it's time to step back from the monitor and the keyboard and give your head a really big shake to de-fog that brain of yours. You're now shitting on people and their posts just for the sake of it.

 :


----------



## Jarnhamar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> However, I'm sure they'd then just counter-argue that doing such a thing would just be robbing from Peter to pay Paul though beca



I was under the impression that this is exactly what is happening now though?

A few years ago some decisions were made. Money was spent. Things sent places. Money used for this and that.  No real consideration was going to be given to what would happen down the road. We were at war and what w needed we (mostly) got.

Now it's not that our budget is cut-it's that the decisions made those few years ago are biting us in the ass and we can't afford what we bought, maintenance costs and whatever else.
We're robbing from Peter (money taken from various training) to pay Paul (the purchases, upkeep, maintenance, contracts etc..).

Just like it took a few years for us to realize the overzealous spending screw up we made it's going to take a few more years to recover.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> What things?  What positions?



Well, 2 things I've heard in this thread itself is the RMC mess and the Army Run. In person, I've also heard of this "Territorial Defense Battalion" idea. It does take up positions, and theres a few people that consider such a thing useless, or at least worth cutting in the interest of keeping soldiers payed.

Oh, another thing that I've heard of is all the useless "HQs" popping up all over the place.



> For some squadrons, it will take years to recover the experience levels and much effort to regain the skills that have to be put on the backburner.



No need to worry though. We're still going to have an Army Run, and the RMC mess is going to be upgraded! Crisis averted!



> I don't see why guaranteeing a parade night a week (roughly two days pay per month) would be such a tall order. It seems like the PRes has been told "if you want a full time job, go regs" and "if you want a part time job, go work at Mcdonalds". I agree with one but no so much the other.



Indeed, it does seem that way. I see that the reserve want commitment from their soldiers... but what about the commitment that the soldiers want from the army?



> Now it's not that our budget is cut-it's that the decisions made those few years ago are biting us in the *** and we can't afford what we bought, maintenance costs and whatever else.
> We're robbing from Peter (money taken from various training) to pay Paul (the purchases, upkeep, maintenance, contracts etc..).



Unfortunately, a lot of people see it as taking from the poor to pay for the rich's mistakes, instead of taking from the rich to pay for the rich's mistakes.


----------



## armyvern

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that this is exactly what is happening now though?
> 
> A few years ago some decisions were made. Money was spent. Things sent places. Money used for this and that.  No real consideration was going to be given to what would happen down the road. We were at war and what w needed we (mostly) got.
> 
> Now it's not that our budget is cut-it's that the decisions made those few years ago are biting us in the ass and we can't afford what we bought, maintenance costs and whatever else.
> We're robbing from Peter (money taken from various training) to pay Paul (the purchases, upkeep, maintenance, contracts etc..).
> 
> Just like it took a few years for us to realize the overzealous spending screw up we made it's going to take a few more years to recover.



You're right. That's exactly what "adjusting" is.

Unfortunately, funds "nice to spend (and not yet spent or contracted to be spent)" somewhere are now being diverted into areas where they have no choice but to "have to spend (and are already contracted to spend)". 

I think there must have been a better way to go about it all ... as I've said many times. I don't think anyone in this thread has said what is occuring is a "best solution", but contracts must be paid, troops signed onto full-time contracts must be paid etc etc. It's the things that aren't "must be paids" that the funds are being diverted away from.

Training (both in the RegF and the ResF), flying time, course cancellations (both RegF & ResF) are being cut. BClass posns in the ResF are being cut ... as is recruiting into RegF (& ResF). This also isn't affecting "just" the Army. It's also affecting the ARAF and the Shads too. The entire CF. 

Please understand that the cuts being experienced in the ResF are understood by and detrimental to us Reg Forcers too. Cuts in the B Class also directly impact upon my capability to ensure that my RegF section gets it's job done supporting trg and operations overseas ... a red-trade, we depend upon those BClass pers to help us meet our goals too and I just want that clearly understood.

There are some here who'd profess that "we" don't give a crap as it "doesn't affect us" or because "we haven't lost our jobs too, we don't care because it doesn't hurt us too" (here's looking at the poster with the user-name _very-closely-named-to-female-appendage-guy_) - it does!!

Someone (& I'm sure it wasn't any "one" individual per se) had to cut somewhere to pay the "must pays" --- I wouldn't have wanted to be the one to be put into that place, and I'm quite sure that those pers didn't just come up with "their solution" at the drop of a hat with zero regard to the situation - I'm also quite sure that it was not something they either wanted to do or were eager to do.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

Strategic Review is government wide and not DND specific.  Each department will give up its bottom 5% to the centre but at the same time they can also bid for extra money for new initiatives.   The catchy phrase being used was divestment with reinvestment.  DFSR has 5 ongoing initiatives.  One of those is optimization of the C2 structure for the CF.  They will be looking for redundancies and suggesting remediation.  Think of DFSR as the CDS' way of re-engaging Transformation that slowly faded a few years ago without successful completion for some organizations.


----------



## COBRA-6

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> Strategic Review is government wide and not DND specific.  Each department will give up its bottom 5% to the centre but at the same time they can also bid for extra money for new initiatives.   The catchy phrase being used was divestment with reinvestment.



The delicious irony is that we have hired several very Senior and General Officers on long-term Class B contracts in order to staff the Strat Review directorate. This is on top of the huge amount of staff horsepower being thrown at Strat Review by each Lvl 1. There have been "Tiger Teams" full of Capts/Majs/Cols put together doing nothing but this since the fall, and the "official" review doesn't start for quite some time. 

So in the end the recommendation on the "bottom 5%" might likely be to divest ourselves of the Strat Review!  >


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> Hack the Reserves to buy combat vehicles.
> 
> Mmmmmm. Smells something like Bison. ;D


At the very least we know that this is not the case.   DND cannot legally move money between Vote 1 and Vote 5.  So, Primary Reserve pay cannot be converted into capital procurement funds.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

So in the end the recommendation on the "bottom 5%" might likely be to divest ourselves of the Strat Review!  >
[/quote]

That's funny.  That suggestion came up in one of the teams last Spring.  Unfortunately, it was the throw away COA.


----------



## Brad Sallows

My viewpoint comes from the civilian world, of course.  The primary failure (sudden budget emergency) here is the sort of thing that normally results in firings, which does not mean relieved from appointment and posted; it means released from employment.  If senior - trained - people are being layed off in preference to untrained people, that is a red flag which represents either an immediate (picked the wrong person - one should lay off the untrained and inexperienced help first) or long-standing (the position should never have been created in the first place) secondary failure.  If the system - the mysterious and ponderous inner workings of gov.ca/DND/CF that one supposedly must know in order to be permitted to make pointed observations - militates the problems, then the system is also a point of failure.  The failures don't need to be dressed up and excused; they need to be acknowledged and then avoided, eliminated, or mitigated.

Are these two statements true, or not:
1) There are quite a few reservists employed full-time.
2) There are (or at least until recently, were) still some full-time vacancies posted for reservists.

If those statements are true, one can only conclude that there are already fewer people employed than should be, and many fewer Reg F than should be.  [Edit: If "trained" positions are being deleted in preference to "untrained" positions i]t follows that the budget emergency can't lie with the total pay envelope unless unnecessary positions were created that should not exist.  I realize full well the latter may be one of the systemic problems.  In that case, one would not expect the full-time positions which require trained/experienced people to be replaced at some future time: if they are less important than incompletely trained recruits, they are essentially of no importance at all.

While I suspect there are too many unnecessary class "B" positions padding out various levels and organizations, the suggestion that any given position holder should have "gone Reg" doesn't wash: a position is either required or not; it's importance is not dictated by the conditions of employment of the person holding it.  Neither does the suggestion that recent recruits must be kept hold water: if a position in a HQ can be deleted, so can a position in a PAT platoon.  A person whose position is zeroed can either fill an alternate position for which he is qualified or be released from employment.


----------



## aesop081

Nero said:
			
		

> I see that the reserve want commitment from their soldiers... but what about the commitment that the soldiers want from the army?



Wait a second, i seem to remember some good advice give to new reservists....advice posted on this very site :



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Rule #1- Your regiment doesn't "owe you" anything.
> Lots of troops come back and seem to think their regiments owe them for I don't know, passing their course? *
> Basically, give me whatever course or class B tasking or I'll quit.



So which is it ? The army does or does not owe people anything ?


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If senior - trained - people are being layed off in preference to untrained people, that is a red flag ....
> 
> ...  If "trained" positions are being deleted in preference to "untrained" positions it follows that the budget emergency can't lie with the total pay envelope unless unnecessary positions were created that should not exist. ...
> 
> While I suspect there are too many unnecessary class "B" positions padding out various levels and organizations, the suggestion that any given position holder should have "gone Reg" doesn't wash: a position is either required or not; it's importance is not dictated by the conditions of employment of the person holding it.  Neither does the suggestion that recent recruits must be kept hold water: if a position in a HQ can be deleted, so can a position in a PAT platoon.  A person whose position is zeroed can either fill an alternate position for which he is qualified or be released from employment.


Are you suggesting that Regular Force recruits should be released so that we can continue to employ more of the existing long term Class B?  I might by onto this with the condition that the long term Class B also be compulsorily component transferred to the regular force.

Experience is not the only factor.  Being career managed and the flexibility for the service to put you where you are needed when you are needed is a significant benefit the institution receives from the regular force solder.

I agree that one should not blame the reservist for being Class B when employment dries up.  If the position is required, it is not the reservists fault that the position was not created as a regular force position, and it is not the reservists fault that we have not found ways to increase mobility between the two components.  In the end it is not a matter of "if you want a full time job you should join the regular force."  It is a matter of if a full time position is permanently required, that position should have be regular force.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Are you suggesting that Regular Force recruits should be released so that we can continue to employ more of the existing long term Class B?

First ask and answer, for each "long term Class B" (really, any position), why the position exists.  If it is unnecessary, why is it there?  Cut it and leave it cut.  There should be no Class "B"s for the sake of having Class "B"s.  If a position occupied by a Reg F member is deemed unnecessary, cut it and bump a necessary Class "B".  Otherwise, cut loose the recruits.  That's the general practice: first the unnecessary "middle managers", then the newest hires.

>I might by onto this with the condition that the long term Class B also be compulsorily component transferred to the regular force.

Or just leave the position unfilled if no one accepts the conditions.  If the organization isn't suffering after 2 months, delete the position permanently.

The institution receives a significant benefit from hiring Class "B"s.  Like contractors in the civilian world, they can be fairly abruptly cut loose for a couple of weeks or couple of months to balance a budget.  Having a number of not-quite-100%-necessary positions filled by Class "B"s is a godsend to commanders when the "budget adjustments" come down.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero

> So which is it ? The army does or does not owe people anything ?



What I'm saying is that any good leader should look out for their troops... lead by example... etc. If the army wants the troops to commit to training, then I say the army should commit to giving the troops stable employment. Can you not agree with this? I dont see how you cant? I mean, the troops *are* going to look for a steady income when then need a steady income. The army cant blame the soldiers for not showing up anymore because they got another job simply because the reserves couldnt give them an equal commitment to what they put in.

Of course, the army can do whatever the frig it wants in the end, but that doesnt mean its right. No the army doesnt "owe" them anything, but it _should_ at least give them an equal commitment to the commitment they ask from the troops. What would you propose? Would you rather the army, since it doesnt "owe" them anything, used up, chewed up, and spit out soldiers whenever they want? By that same mentality, we shouldnt give people medical benifits when they get injured at work, since the army doesnt "owe" them anything. Hell, they should just stop paying them too.


----------



## CountDC

Crantor said:
			
		

> Do you have any idea what cancelling BMQs midway will have on those units?  *For some it will take years to recover from.   We'll be losing some good people as well.*
> 
> However, with the 320 million more in cuts on the way, I think that Army Reservists will see just how much the CF as a whole is going to end up sharing the brunt of these "readjustments".



Tell us about it - the clerk world is still suffering the loses from merging the trades and cutting positions.  Some good people will go but most of them will tough it out.  The real shame in all this is that as some of us have said - it has happened in the past, is happening now and will most likely happen again.  That is why I always tell people I talk to about joining the reserves - it is a great part time job.  DO not count on it for a full time career though.

The rest of the CF is already sharing in on these readjustments.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The CF needs to take a closer look at making an employment commitment to the Class "A"s which can't be broken below, say, the deputy minister/CDS level.  If the recruiting pitch in part emphasizes Class "A" as a form of part-time job and aims predominantly at people in late high school or post-secondary education, then people are in fact going to show up "for the money".  Don't lead people on and then change tunes.

Class "B"s need to think realistically of themselves as contractors: every job should be viewed as not more than a six-month stint even if it doesn't have a targeted end date, with the possibility of being cut loose at any time if it suits "the business".  Plenty of people go through life as contractors, but the first step is to shift expectations away from long-term gigs.


----------



## meni0n

I find it hypocritical of the army to to cut so many class b positions at the reserve units but there are a lot of class b messages coming out of Ottawa and NDHQ. Hell, yesterday there was a class b for a Major any trade  that was from the CLS office. They can't find a single Major sitting around NDHQ to fill that from the Regs?


----------



## Occam

I think you'll find that there are currently quite a few Cl B positions being advertised in the NCR....for Majors and Captains.


----------



## COBRA-6

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The CF needs to take a closer look at making an employment commitment to the Class "A"s which can't be broken below, say, the deputy minister/CDS level.  If the recruiting pitch in part emphasizes Class "A" as a form of part-time job and aims predominantly at people in late high school or post-secondary education, then people are in fact going to show up "for the money".  Don't lead people on and then change tunes.
> 
> Class "B"s need to think realistically of themselves as contractors: every job should be viewed as not more than a six-month stint even if it doesn't have a targeted end date, with the possibility of being cut loose at any time if it suits "the business".  Plenty of people go through life as contractors, but the first step is to shift expectations away from long-term gigs.



I agree with your line of thinking, however I would suggest that in order to run your part-time army you require a certain amount of full-time or "active duty" reservists providing direct support (the B(A)'s). Yes this could be and has been done by RegF RSS staff, with varrying degrees of success. But as we're an Army that is structuring our RegF Battalion to *rely* on Reserve augmentation for operations, we don't have enough Regulars to fill out the full-time army as it is. (A RegF Inf Coy establishment will be 132 pers, brought up to 150 for operations by reserve augmentation) 

These "B(A)" posns should be templated for uniformity between units, brigades and areas (allowing for size differences from unit to unit, bde to bde, ect), and the funds reserved at the national level, again requiring high level approval to ammend. What has gotten us into our current mess is allowing commanders at all levels to hire class b's out of their own budget without established posns for them. This is not a problem unique to the Army of course.  

Non-positional Class "B" contracts should be limited to short term tasks like training, courses, or staff call-outs, not long-term staff posns.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The CF needs to take a closer look at making an employment commitment to the Class "A"s which can't be broken below, say, the deputy minister/CDS level.  If the recruiting pitch in part emphasizes Class "A" as a form of part-time job and aims predominantly at people in late high school or post-secondary education, then people are in fact going to show up "for the money".  Don't lead people on and then change tunes.


The credibility of the reserves (which really translates to the CF because people don't know any better) took a big hit when coop students had to go back and tell their teachers and schools that surprise they weren't on coop anymore and needed to find new placements and new classes.  



> Class "B"s need to think realistically of themselves as contractors: every job should be viewed as not more than a six-month stint even if it doesn't have a targeted end date, with the possibility of being cut loose at any time if it suits "the business".  Plenty of people go through life as contractors, but the first step is to shift expectations away from long-term gigs.


Problem is that there are two (unofficial) kinds of class B's.   
1. The random single shot kind of class B. Go down to Trenton and pick up parachutes for a month. Go play hostage for the jtf. Go be a GD out in a flying kitchen in wainwright for an ex.
2. The class Bs that were constant and renewed annually. Same jb same position 9 times out of 19 the same person filling it.

If you have someone who has applied for and been accepted the same class B position for 5 years can one really really blame them for being lured into a false sense of security?
It's understandable that these shouldn't have been pegged as secure long term gigs but that's how the CF treated them IMO.



			
				meni0n said:
			
		

> I find it hypocritical of the army to to cut so many class b positions at the reserve units but there are a lot of class b messages coming out of Ottawa and NDHQ. Hell, yesterday there was a class b for a Major any trade  that was from the CLS office. They can't find a single Major sitting around NDHQ to fill that from the Regs?



One part of the decision to go after reserve class B's has been to stop reg force members from double dipping.
The CF wagered that if class B positions dried up there would be fewer  reg force members getting out of the regs and joining the reserves and hopping on long term class B positions - and they were right.
I'm hearing a lot of stories of guys who got out and went reserve world only to turn around and start making calls trying to get back in the regs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I want to hear more about these renovations to the RMC Mess. What's up with that?


----------



## COBRA-6

recceguy said:
			
		

> I want to hear more about these renovations to the RMC Mess. What's up with that?



Ahh but RMC doesn't belong to the Army.


----------



## PMedMoe

recceguy said:
			
		

> I want to hear more about these renovations to the RMC Mess. What's up with that?


I believe that was discussed elsewhere on this fourm (at an earlier date) and someone came on and stated that this was money already bookmarked for a contract to fix deficiencies at the mess (mainly infrastructure repair as opposed to purely cosmetic renovations).  Apples and oranges.


----------



## Journeyman

From the posted Tender, seeking bids on the project



> *R29 Senior Staff Mess Bar Renovation, RMC – CFB Kingston, Ontario
> Contract Award  *
> 
> DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION CANADA (DCC) – KN099940 – R29 Senior Staff Mess Bar Renovation, RMC – CFB Kingston, Ontario
> 
> The work includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the supply of labour, material, and equipment necessary to complete the renovations to the Bar in R29 – Senior Staff Mess, 9 Point Fredrick Drive at RMC, CFB Kingston. The work includes selective demolitions, construction of new supporting walls, stairs and bar complete with walk-in cooler and associated piping, electrical, mechanical, ductwork and architectural finishes. Minor exterior improvements, sidewalks and landscaping, may also be required.
> 
> *The estimated cost for this opportunity is in the order of $415,000.00.*


----------



## Fishbone Jones

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Ahh but RMC doesn't belong to the Army.



Who does it belong to then? I hear "Senior Staff Mess" I envision NPF and CF\DND.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I believe that was discussed elsewhere on this fourm (at an earlier date) and someone came on and stated that this was money already bookmarked for a contract to fix deficiencies at the mess (mainly infrastructure repair as opposed to purely cosmetic renovations).  Apples and oranges.



The tender sure sounds like renovations and cosmetics to me. I was responsible for overseeing the 'deficiency repair' (renovation) of the Totem Lounge in Comox, in the 80's, and the tender doesn't sound that much different. Macintosh and Granny Smith.


----------



## COBRA-6

recceguy said:
			
		

> Who does it belong to then? I hear "Senior Staff Mess" I envision NPF and CF\DND.



It is part of CDA (Canadian Defence Academy), which falls under CMP (Military Personnel Command).


----------



## vonGarvin

$415,000 for repairs ain't gonna fix nuthin' in the mo-litia.

There, I said it.  With tens and potentially hundreds of millions short, scoping in on the equivalent of roughly 4 (four) x Reg Force Majors' worth of salary is missing the point entirely.


----------



## bigcletus

How about go one step further:  give an annual "retainer" for Class A troops, say $1000/year, you could call it a PIA stipend.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> It is part of CDA (Canadian Defence Academy), which falls under CMP (Military Personnel Command).



So, in fact, they are part of the CF http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/acm-scp/index-eng.asp



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> $415,000 for repairs ain't gonna fix nuthin' in the mo-litia.
> 
> There, I said it.  With tens and potentially hundreds of millions short, scoping in on the equivalent of roughly 4 (four) x Reg Force Majors' worth of salary is missing the point entirely.


Cool your jets there TV. I've got a right to ask. I offered no opinion that the price tag would solve our problems. However, the optics outweigh the pricetag. Besides, budgets are balanced by looking at all the contingencies, not just big ticket program savings. I can move on, now that my curiosity is satisfied. Can you?


----------



## kratz

bigcletus said:
			
		

> How about go one step further:  give an annual "retainer" for Class A troops, say $1000/year, you could call it a PIA stipend.



That may be a hard PILL to swallow for some parts of the CF.  ;D

Ok, that was a really bad pun.


----------



## COBRA-6

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, in fact, they are part of the CF http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/acm-scp/index-eng.asp



Absolutely part of the CF, but not part of the Army.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Absolutely part of the CF, but not part of the Army.



......and the whole of the CF is under the scope for cuts, not just the Army. 

Anyway, it's a non-issue.


----------



## vonGarvin

recceguy said:
			
		

> I can move on, now that my curiosity is satisfied. Can you?


Sure can


----------



## COBRA-6

recceguy said:
			
		

> ......and the whole of the CF is under the scope for cuts, not just the Army.
> 
> Anyway, it's a non-issue.



Agreed. I only point it out to illustrate the bureaucratic complexity of DND. Almost 20 Level 1 Orgs. Madness.


----------



## gcclarke

But the whole of the CF isn't undergoing budget cuts. The Department of National Defence had a budget increase this year. 

I thought that was the point of the entire discussion on PR spin with regard to "cuts" versus "adjustments". Certain organizations within the Department have either forecasted incorrectly, over-spent thus far, or ran low on money for the rest of the fiscal year somehow. Some of these organizations (Let's call one of them "The Army) have been forced to make some rather drastic changes in the way they operate for the next few months (Cutting Class A & B budgets). However, this doesn't mean that the situation is the same for all the other organizations, such as the Navy still running training at its reserve divisions, or the CMP not deciding to cancel renovations needed at RMC. 

And yes, the optics may seem bad. But this doesn't mean that IM Group, or ADM Mat, or CEFCOM or any of the other L1s should feel obligated in any way shape or form to hand some of their budget over to the group that's feeling the pinch the most.


----------



## McG

One problem in this thread is that many are looking at spending in one place or another, and then launching on that as proof that there should not be cuts somewhere else.  Unfortunately, this approach fails to recognize that different budget decisions are made in different locations across all levels of command.

Decisions to cut from reserve pay in the Army may be in stark contrast to Class B hiring by other level 1 organizations in the NCR.  Decisions to cancel training in 32 CBG may not match the decisions to only cancel yet-to-be started courses in other brigades.

The effectiveness of any given HQ in managing its budget prior to the “adjustment” is also likely to affect the money it still has available (and the money its subordinate elements have too).

The same is true of Vote 1 & Vote 5 money.  Capital expenditures for infrastructure betterment or equipment modernization may appear far less impacted than heavily clawed back money for pay and training.  But we cannot legally move money that Parliament voted into one pot in order to increase the size of the other pot.

The optics might suck, but it does nothing chasing on after what is happening in some other unit in some other formation of some other command.


----------



## ettibebs

Just my grain of salt.

Some organization who work for the regF(mostly) actually prefer class B to have some stability in the position their manning.  There is a cost to retraining a new guy every 3 to 4 year.  And they can have a class B 20 years in a position if they want, with the guy knowing every in and out of the place and the job.


----------



## CountDC

ettibebs said:
			
		

> Just my grain of salt.
> 
> Some organization who work for the regF(mostly) actually prefer class B to have some stability in the position their manning.  There is a cost to retraining a new guy every 3 to 4 year.  And they can have a class B 20 years in a position if they want, with the guy knowing every in and out of the place and the job.



and they can have a civilian position created and hire someone into an established position for 20 years or more with them knowing every in and out and give a little more job security to that person.

Am actually hoping they will do that to 2 posns here - mine and the Cl B Capts.  Give some much needed stability to the office.  I imagine that Cl B is one of the so called NCR bloat some have mentioned.  Suggest you don't be so quick to judge.  That position is very much needed right now and there are a fair number of people that would benefit from having it filled - mainly reserves looking for money.


----------



## ltmaverick25

gcclarke said:
			
		

> But the whole of the CF isn't undergoing budget cuts. The Department of National Defence had a budget increase this year.
> 
> I thought that was the point of the entire discussion on PR spin with regard to "cuts" versus "adjustments". Certain organizations within the Department have either forecasted incorrectly, over-spent thus far, or ran low on money for the rest of the fiscal year somehow. Some of these organizations (Let's call one of them "The Army) have been forced to make some rather drastic changes in the way they operate for the next few months (Cutting Class A & B budgets). However, this doesn't mean that the situation is the same for all the other organizations, such as the Navy still running training at its reserve divisions, or the CMP not deciding to cancel renovations needed at RMC.
> 
> And yes, the optics may seem bad. But this doesn't mean that IM Group, or ADM Mat, or CEFCOM or any of the other L1s should feel obligated in any way shape or form to hand some of their budget over to the group that's feeling the pinch the most.



I work with a number of naval reserve officers and they are telling me that the situation is pretty bad for them too.  Alot of NRDs are only authorized one parade night between now and April.  Moreover, alot of the class B funding that they require for training purposes, like courses, OJT ect... has been eliminated.  Seems to me their situation is not quite as terrible as the army, however, its still pretty awful.


----------



## kratz

At my NRD the only cutback that has been seen is Admin nights. Cutting out the admin night mostly affects the HODs and CHODs and not the average sailor.

Otherwise, we are still training as on the schedule. Yes, we were informed the same thing, no new class B and no new TD until the new FY. But there is still NABs training scheduled for our unit. So training is getting completed, just at a reduced level (10 pers vice 30).


----------



## Monsoon

kratz said:
			
		

> At my NRD the only cutback that has been seen is Admin nights. Cutting out the admin night mostly affects the HODs and CHODs and not the average sailor.


Uh... unless they want, you know, "administration" done of their behalf. Or training to be ready for them on the training night.

Anyway, NAVRES and the Navy in general have handled the cuts differently owing to their different situation relative to the Army. The scale of the cuts (sorry, "reallocations") were every bit as big as those handed to the Army - in fact, larger on a per capita basis - but the Navy has a large, controllable cost: fuel. So the sailing schedule for the fleets were heavily reduced before contracts were pared back (you don't really need guys doing OJT on ships alongside) and before NAVRES was asked to hand back their share of the cost. To my knowledge, no contracts were terminated prematurely.

Each NRD was handed the same cut (in the low double digits) to their annual budget, but since the reduction came in the last fiscal quarter it was amplified in scale. Since budgets are delegated to the unit level in NAVRES to a greater extent than I believe is the case in the militia, the NRDs were able to decide how they wanted to achieve the reductions and to reap what they sowed in the first three quarters of the FY. We were all warned back in the summer that these cuts were a good possibility; any unit that's completely canceling training now didn't heed the warning.

For my unit, we were able to make the cut by moving some recruit pre-BMQ training to the new FY and by canceling the equivalent of one week a month in both training and admin. We're also trying to clamp down on attendance on admin nights, but realistically the work done on those nights (at least at my unit) is pretty fundamental to the unit's running. We're not going to save too much by canceling them, but we sure as heck can mess things up.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Speaking of peanuts vs hundreds of millions of dollars, how much - percentage wise - of the goal is achieved by gutting 3 months of class"A".  Seriously.

The last time this happened while I was still active I thought about the numbers a little and was disgusted.  Miniscule gain with heavy adverse impact, all because some people thought the "pain had to be fairly shared".  Tripe.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

CANLANDGEN 004/10 CLS 004/10 181818 JAN 10

SUBJECT: MGT OF ARMY RES ON CL B SVC OUTSIDE OF THEIR ARMY RES UNITS

1. SINCE THE BEGINNING OF CANADA S MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN, THE CF AND THE ARMY TEAM (REGULAR, RESERVE AND CIVILIAN) HAVE DEMONSTRATED BOTH DEDICATION AND FOCUS LEADING TO OUR CURRENT SUCCESS. INDEED, THE ARMY TEAM HAS ANSWERED THE INCREASING DEMANDS PLACED UPON IT SINCE 2001 AND HAS ABLY FILLED IN WHERE AND WHEN REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE ARMY S MISSION ABROAD AND AT HOME. THIS CONTRIBUTION IS WELL RECOGNIZED AND APPRECIATED.

2. IT IS MY INTENT TO ENSURE THAT THE ARMY CONTINUES TO DELIVER EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY THE CRITICAL WAR WINNING EQUIPMENT, HIGH READINESS, AND COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL TRAINING FOR BOTH THE REGULAR AND RESERVE

3. TO MEET THIS INTENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE LIMITED RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE ARMY ARE FOCUSED ON THE ARMY S PRIORITIES. ONE SUCH AREA
NEEDING OUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTIONS IS THE EXPANDING NUMBER OF ARMY RESERVISTS WHO, WHILE EMPLOYED ON FULL TIME SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOME UNIT, CONTINUE
TO OCCUPY POSNS WITHIN ARMY RESERVE UNITS BUT ARE NEITHER CONTRIBUTING TO THE TRAINING AND ACTIVITIES OF THEIR HOME UNIT NOR READILY AVAILABLE TO THE ARMY. THERE IS A COST ASSOCIATED WITH CLASS B MANAGEMENT, AND, FOR THE MOST PART, THE COST TO MANAGE SOLDIERS EMPLOYED IN AND OUT OF THE ARMY HAS BEEN BORNE BY THE ARMY. GIVEN FISCAL REALITIES, THE ARMY CAN NO LONGER FUND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TO SOLDIERS EMPLOYED OUTSIDE THE ARMY, AND, TO THAT END, THE COST OF CLASS B MANAGEMENT WILL BE SHARED AMONG THE VARIOUS EMPLOYERS.

4. IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, ALL ARMY RESERVE PERSONNEL EMPLOYED ON CLASS B OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOME UNIT FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME (MIN OF ONE YEAR
REMAINING ON THE TOS) WILL BE POSTED TO THE EMPLOYING UNIT OR THE APPROPRIATE PRL SUPPORTING THE EMPLOYING UNIT NLT 31 MARCH 2010. EXCEPTIONS TO THIS DIRECTION WILL BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE L2 COMDS, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND MAY ONLY BE CONSIDERED FOR THOSE ARMY RESERVISTS WHO CONTRIBUTE TO HOME UNIT ACTIVITIES AND TRAINING

5. THE ARMY NEEDS TO POSITION ITSELF FOR SUCCESS BY ENSURING THAT IT HAS READY ACCESS TO ITS MOST IMPORTANT RESOURC  S WHERE AND WHEN IT NEEDS THEM. THE DIRECTION OUTLINED ABOVE IS MEANT TO RE-ASSIGN THE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT COSTS TO THE EMPLOYERS RATHER THAT THE ARMY RESERVE UNITS AND ULTIMATELY THE ARMY.  THE SAVINGS REALIZED BY THIS MEASURE WILL SERVE TOWARDS REDUCING FUTURE FUNDING REDUCTION AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, REDUCE THE WORKLOAD ON ARMY RESERVE UNIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADMIN OF PERSONNEL WHO NO LONGER CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNIT S TRAINING AND ACTIVITIES

6. THIS CANLANDGEN HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH CMP. LS OPI FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS DIRECTION IS THE ARMY G1, COL K. MOHER

SIGNED LGEN A.B. LESLIE, CHIEF OF THE LAND STAFF


----------



## George Wallace

I am curious about para 2.  With what I just witnessed today, it is diametrically opposed to actual events.


----------



## McG

And to implement this the Army has created & staffed at least one new PRL (the LFDTS PRL) if not more.
So, the path to better ensuring our limited resources are appropriately focused requires commit more of those limited resources to military HR staff organizations.
That's not entirely unreasonable, but it does seem at least a little juxtaposed (especially at a time when Class B TOS are being canceled to save money).


----------



## Haggis

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> CANLANDGEN 004/10 CLS 004/10 181818 JAN 10
> 
> SUBJECT: MGT OF ARMY RES ON CL B SVC OUTSIDE OF THEIR ARMY RES UNITS



This makes a Hell of a lot of sense on so many levels.  Maybe it will serve to bring back some of those Class B'ers who've loist touch with what it means to be a soldier.


----------



## brihard

From my amateurish perspective, I like that CANLANDGEN. A lot.


----------



## Jed

OK, does this mean that Class B currently doing job X according to their TOS will cease to do that job and will now do job Y, as a Class A, for the home unit or does it mean they will do job Y as a Class B?

For me anyway, It does not matter so much whether it is job X or Y but the amount of working days I get paid for.


----------



## CountDC

???

It means he will either 

a. carry on just not be held against the unit establishment anymore (which is the way it should have been anyway) 

b. stay on the unit establishment, continue with the class b and parade volunteer at the unit on a regular basis

c. give up the class b and return to the unit.


----------



## Haggis

CountDC said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> It means he will either
> 
> a. carry on just not be held against the unit establishment anymore (which is the way it should have been anyway)
> 
> b. stay on the unit establishment, continue with the class b and parade volunteer at the unit on a regular basis
> 
> c. give up the class b and return to the unit.



I doubt that option c will be widely considered except in the rarest of circumstances.


----------



## CountDC

agree.

i think this will be a win/win for the units.  Depending on where the class b is in relation to the unit they will either have the member working for them again or free up space on their establishment for someone else to contribut to the unit. Good for the clerks too - they won't have to keep doing work for someone they rarely or never see at the unit.

The only time I could see option c is if the employing unit does not have a posn to put the mbr in.


----------



## Remius

Hmn.  I prefer a more negative view on this.  How many of these people on class B that actually parade with their unit  are going to get L2 approval?  Something tells me not very many, even with justification from their COs.  At my unit some of these gusy occupy some key positions.

I'm all for dropping the dead weight that isn't parading, but if we throw out the dedicated class B guys, I'm not sure how this is going to help.


----------



## armyvern

MCG said:
			
		

> And to implement this the Army has created & staffed at least one new PRL (the LFDTS PRL) if not more.
> So, the path to better ensuring our limited resources are appropriately focused requires commit more of those limited resources to military HR staff organizations.
> That's not entirely unreasonable, but it does seem at least a little juxtaposed (especially at a time when Class B TOS are being canceled to save money).



See, now I look at it from the opposite direction ...

All those Reserve Force purple suppies, RMS clerks etc who wear Army uniforms and are currently on B Class contracts working outside of their home units and the Army - in places like DSCO Ottawa etc ... will now be managed and paid for by the entity where they are actually working for and employed in. That will free up _*lots*_ of "Army money" because there's a whole bunch of purple types on B Class who wear land uniforms employed outside of land Force Units (Res or Reg). That leaves that "Army" money freed up to "manage" B Class actually employed _*in and for * _ "the Army".


----------



## Staff Weenie

At one point, there was a real advantage to having numerous personnel from your unit employed elsewhere on Cl B. These folks counted as being on your 'effective strength', and when the funding was being calculated at higher levels they were funded as if they were active Cl A troops. So, you got so many days of Cl A pay for a soldier who didn't cost you a dime (was it 42.5 days per year?). You could then redirect the money to employing other soldiers.

One unit I knew of had approximately 20 personnel employed Cl B outside of the unit. The CO thus had money for almost a Pl worth of extra troops for the year. It was a very common practice to encourage it.


----------



## McG

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> All those Reserve Force .... on B Class contracts working outside of their home units and the Army - in places like DSCO Ottawa etc ... will now be managed and paid for by the entity where they are actually working for and employed in. That will free up lots of "Army money" because ....


The employing unit (EU) already has a responsibility to pay the Class B pers they use (so no money saved).
This policy will not result in cuts to unit ORs (so no money saved).
This policy will force reservists onto existing PRLs (which are already complaining of being under staffed, so will likely expand to handle the burden & consume more money).

I'm not saying this is a bad policy (because I don't think it is).  However, it is a policy that will result in new demands for permanent staff in new & existing PRLs.  It will not save money.  It will reduce the burden of work on PRes unit ORs.


----------



## armyvern

I understand that they are already paid by the entity with whom they are employed.

But, it takes a whole lot of Army bucks to continue "to manage" those pers who wear Army uniforms but whom are not employed within or on behalf of the Army. I think this new policy is great:

You want to employ them because you have a need over there in DSSPM (par example) ... then you pay them and _you_ manage them.

It makes sense to me - it ensures that appropriate entity will now have to expend the appropriate funds from their own entity's budget "to manage people employed within" vice the Army bearing management costs for pers they can't touch or rely upon to deploy etc.


----------



## McG

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, it takes a whole lot of Army bucks to continue "to manage" those pers who wear Army uniforms but whom are not employed within or on behalf of the Army.


The people doing the management are OR clerks & adjutants in the various reserve units.  I cannot see any of these being cut with the change (they will remain but be better able to focus on the responsibilities in the unit).  Where exactly do you see money being saved?


----------



## 54/102 CEF

Its easy to dismiss Class B on callout away from the unit. Some of the commentary here is way out of line on Class B commitment.

Last year I took P Res Army Ops from Sep 08 - Jul 09.

How many would count up your work year and add an extra 28%?

No time off during the week to study, no time off in lieu

Did both jobs = approx extra 55 days work

Got the certificate in spite of the Gaff Factor going below zero

I`ll claim my percentage in support of CLS`s "intent" to stay with the unit. And I expect 20 others in the same boat will too.

Look around you - you may recognise me and the other 60 fellow hard heads.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> The employing unit (EU) already has a responsibility to pay the Class B pers they use (so no money saved).
> This policy will not result in cuts to unit ORs (so no money saved).
> This policy will force reservists onto existing PRLs (which are already complaining of being under staffed, so will likely expand to handle the burden & consume more money).
> 
> I'm not saying this is a bad policy (because I don't think it is).  However, it is a policy that will result in new demands for permanent staff in new & existing PRLs.  It will not save money.  It will reduce the burden of work on PRes unit ORs.



Hate to burst you bubble, but this policy has cut deeply into the Reserves.  Our OR has lost the guy who does Pay.  The OR is left with a Reg Force Air Force RMS Clerk as CC, who does not have knowledge of the Reserve Pay or Administration systems, nor is qualified PLQ, but holding an Acting Lacking rank.  There is one newly hired OR Clerk on Class B.  They have to deal with two unique units, with officers and Snr NCOs who are spread across the country.  The Class B QM/TN NCO had his job terminated.  The Trg NCO had his job terminated.  The Recruiting/Release NCO had their job terminated.  The Ops WO and Ops O/Adjt had their jobs terminated, and we are told that a Reg Force officer and WO may be posted in this APS.  It is January.  Two unique units are now rendered INEFFECTIVE for the next six or more months depending on who and if someone gets posted in as RSS.  Talk your way out of this one.  A clerk, especially one with no experience, can not run one unit, let alone two, by themself.  People are asking questions, but really don't see the decision makers as being willing to look at what they have done.


----------



## Haggis

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmn.  I prefer a more negative view on this.  How many of these people on class B that actually parade with their unit  are going to get L2 approval?  Something tells me not very many, even with justification from their COs.  At my unit some of these gusy occupy some key positions.



The onus is on the EU to justify why the member is not allowed to parade.  This removes the onus on the L2 to career manage the member beyond what is required for his Class B employment.  Gaining L2 approval is easier than you think.


----------



## CountDC

MCG said:
			
		

> The people doing the management are OR clerks & adjutants in the various reserve units.  I cannot see any of these being cut with the change (they will remain but be better able to focus on the responsibilities in the unit).  Where exactly do you see money being saved?



hmmm - in the navy we just had a unit hire on a cl b to manage all the cl b pers that were administered by the unit but not employed there so a policy such as this would have saved money there. 

It may also be one of those cases where someone has sat down and done the "we spend x hours administrating these people and that computes to x dollars a year".  No real dollars saved as you mentioned.

By the message someone has identified savings somewhere so it will be interesting to see where.  Perhaps next you will see the cl b pay clerk posns (if the units still have them) turned back into cl a posn.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hate to burst you bubble, but this policy has cut deeply into the Reserves.  Our OR has lost the guy who does Pay.  The OR is left with a Reg Force Air Force RMS Clerk as CC, who does not have knowledge of the Reserve Pay or Administration systems, nor is qualified PLQ, but holding an Acting Lacking rank.  There is one newly hired OR Clerk on Class B.  They have to deal with two unique units, with officers and Snr NCOs who are spread across the country.  The Class B QM/TN NCO had his job terminated.  The Trg NCO had his job terminated.  The Recruiting/Release NCO had their job terminated.  The Ops WO and Ops O/Adjt had their jobs terminated, and we are told that a Reg Force officer and WO may be posted in this APS.  It is January.  Two unique units are now rendered INEFFECTIVE for the next six or more months depending on who and if someone gets posted in as RSS.  Talk your way out of this one.  A clerk, especially one with no experience, can not run one unit, let alone two, by themself.  People are asking questions, but really don't see the decision makers as being willing to look at what they have done.


Sorry George, but there are a lot of moving parts and you seem to be confusing the effects of one issue as being brought about by another issue.

The cessation of employment that you reference are not because of the new PRL policy.  They are because the Army has seperately directed that the number of Class B possitions be significantly reduced.  That is going to suck for a lot of people, but it is not a result of the CANLANDGEN.


----------



## CountDC

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hate to burst you bubble, but this policy has cut deeply into the Reserves.  Our OR has lost the guy who does Pay.  The OR is left with a Reg Force Air Force RMS Clerk as CC, who does not have knowledge of the Reserve Pay or Administration systems, nor is qualified PLQ, but holding an Acting Lacking rank.  There is one newly hired OR Clerk on Class B.  They have to deal with two unique units, with officers and Snr NCOs who are spread across the country.  The Class B QM/TN NCO had his job terminated.  The Trg NCO had his job terminated.  The Recruiting/Release NCO had their job terminated.  The Ops WO and Ops O/Adjt had their jobs terminated, and we are told that a Reg Force officer and WO may be posted in this APS.  It is January.  Two unique units are now rendered INEFFECTIVE for the next six or more months depending on who and if someone gets posted in as RSS.  Talk your way out of this one.  A clerk, especially one with no experience, can not run one unit, let alone two, by themself.  People are asking questions, but really don't see the decision makers as being willing to look at what they have done.



wow - feel sorry for the unit.  Hopefully they do post in some really strong RSS as you will need it by then to straighten everything out.  The clerk situation is a real shame and I still say it shouldn't happen - reserve units need CCs that are proven able to step up to the plate not actings that shouldn't even exist but as they do should be in an OR with supervisors to mentor them.


----------



## Remius

Haggis said:
			
		

> The onus is on the EU to justify why the member is not allowed to parade.  This removes the onus on the L2 to career manage the member beyond what is required for his Class B employment.  Gaining L2 approval is easier than you think.



Well I'm going to take a watch and shoot approach to this.  But given who our L2 is, I'm not feeling very good about that CANLANGEN.  The intent is good, but the execution (given recent events) might not be.


----------



## Remius

Just saw some stuff that makes me feel a bit better about this.  Hopefully we'll ride it out well enough.  Looks like someone seemed to recognise the bleeding and is trying to stem the blood loss.  Time will tell.


----------



## LineJumper

Crantor said:
			
		

> Just saw some stuff that makes me feel a bit better about this.  Hopefully we'll ride it out well enough.  Looks like someone seemed to recognise the bleeding and is trying to stem the blood loss.  Time will tell.



Do tell, so I can direct some of the jobless/cutback I know to happier times. (rather than a reg recruiter >)


----------



## Remius

Nothing to write home about.  But it looks like they are asking for lists of people that are NES, not parading but on class B or that aren't progressing in the training system.  As oposed to trying to justify keeping guys that are actually parading.  At least for now they are letting units manage their own dirty laundry.

It also looks like they are trying to redistribute some money from have units to have nots to spread the pain.   Looks like no more job cutting until next fiscal year when they'll have a better idea of what the budget looks like. (I know that doesn't sound great but at least people have a few more months to make alternate plans)


----------



## PanaEng

Well, in 33 CBG at least, BMQ and PLQ courses are back on; some units are back to regular parading and some admin nights - we may even have an ex before the end of the year.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Spanky

We got the call earlier this week as well.  All weekly half days turned back on, possibly an ex or two before April.  Feast or Famine!  No word yet on courses.


----------



## McG

Yep.  Now that everyone's budget has been chopped, others are starting to throw money back at the system that they held and now cannot spend.


----------



## aesop081

Things are getting turned back on ?   

I'm taking bets on how many pages it will take before this also becomes a massive RegF evil conspiracy to screw with the reserves.


----------



## Haggis

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm taking bets on how many pages it will take before this also becomes a massive RegF evil conspiracy to screw with the reserves.



Why wait?  Go back and re-read a few of the earlier pages.


----------



## Remius

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Things are getting turned back on ?
> 
> I'm taking bets on how many pages it will take before this also becomes a massive RegF evil conspiracy to screw with the reserves.



Some things are.  

I realise you have no sympathy for what's been going on, but comments like that don't help.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Crantor said:
			
		

> Some things are.
> 
> I realise you have no sympathy for what's been going on, but comments like that don't help.



CDN Aviator is just practicing to take over as the site curmudgeon after I retire. He has a seemingly ferocious bark, but his gummed bite is harmless ;D :-*


----------



## PanaEng

Crantor said:
			
		

> Some things are.
> 
> I realise you have no sympathy for what's been going on, but comments like that don't help.


He was just generalizing a bit...
He meant to say that the real culprit of the whole mess is the Air Force...

 ;D

cheers,
Frank


----------



## armyvern

WhoooHooooo!!! It's that time of year ...  8)


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> WhoooHooooo!!! It's that time of year ...  8)




 :rofl:


----------



## Thompson_JM

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> WhoooHooooo!!! It's that time of year ...  8)



I'm not even sure I'd want mine back...... Not after the way 2 ASG basically Strong-Armed us out of our positions.... 

Eliminating B/A positions at outside units before canceling B posn's within their own...  

Laying off Two Members from B/A positions while they are off on Medical leave one post surgery, and one about to go in for surgery,  for On-Duty Injuries....(Apparently this is Illegal, and apparently they dont much care...)  Then Denying them the opportunity to apply for any other Employment due to being on a TCat.....  



I Understand a need to trim the fat... but our Entire BOR is now being staffed by 1 Cpl, and a Part time Civy HRMS Clk...

Bringing whatever Class A mbrs in that they can to help manage the work...

Even at full staff we were undermanned....  Gaff is in the sewer for most of the unit (part and Full time) and our RegF Cadre cant wait to get as far away from anything involving PRes Svc Bn's and 2 ASG as soon as they Can.......

All I know is that for the Past 11 years, I have been proud to be a soldier. and Damn proud to serve my Country....  

After the way I've seen this handled... and seen the way that Higher Command has tried to Kick our unit to the Curb, I'm having a very very hard time feeling proud of anything to do with the Canadian Forces... Nor do I have much faith in them or their commitment to us....

READ: My unit is good... And they are doing everything they can to fight for those getting let go... Especially the Broken troops.... I support and flat out Love my unit for Standing by it's members.... But I have some choice words for the CF, the Army, and LFCA.... especially the Area CWO who actually had the Gall to Yell out to all of us at a Town hall back in fall '09 that it was "A Great Day to Be a Soldier..."

Maybe back then... and maybe for you Sir... After all... You're still getting paid....


----------



## CanForceOfficer

Now that we are 10 days into April I am just curious if any of the reserve units have had their budgets or Class A days restored.  What about Class B positions?  Any change?  Summer training?  I would be interested in hearing feedback from reservists across the country.

Thanks


----------



## CountDC

Tommy said:
			
		

> I'm not even sure I'd want mine back...... Not after the way 2 ASG basically Strong-Armed us out of our positions....
> 
> Laying off Two Members from B/A positions while they are off on Medical leave one post surgery, and one about to go in for surgery,  for On-Duty Injuries....(Apparently this is Illegal, and apparently they dont much care...)  Then Denying them the opportunity to apply for any other Employment due to being on a TCat.....



Not quite.  They are not required to keep the members employed but if the injuries are due to military service and the dr has declared them temp disabled then the members can apply for compensation.  If proven to be valid they may be paid up to the same as their full time pay while "disabled".


----------



## Steel Badger

Part 3 orders ( I.e. the "Duty Rumour" ) has the Army reserve units being attrited down to 70% of auth str by restricting new enrollments.


----------



## Remius

CanForceOfficer said:
			
		

> Now that we are 10 days into April I am just curious if any of the reserve units have had their budgets or Class A days restored.  What about Class B positions?  Any change?  Summer training?  I would be interested in hearing feedback from reservists across the country.
> 
> Thanks



Oversight on class A days is still happening.  And frankly should stay that way.  No new class Bs as far as I know and units are limited to recruit new numbers.  I think 33 CBg has 80 positions for recruits total.  I'm pretty sure that includes some people enrolled and waiting for courses.  That amounts to about 8 new recruits per unit for 2010/2011.  Daytime staff at my unit is overworked.  They are giving the same level of service with half the staff.  Some have dropped some of their secondary duties to handle it.  But honestly they are getting burned out a bit.   Summer training is broken up due to OP Cadence.   There was  a call to fill some positions on that.  I said thanks but no thanks.


----------



## OldSolduer

As an aside, some clown from some area HQ (says he's "MWO no names no pack drill) wrote to the latest Espirit de Corps and lauded the CLS for cutting Class B reservists. 
I have a few issues with this.

1. If you want to call us out, don't hide behind your "nom de plume" That's a coward's way out.

2. Know what you're talking about.

3. If the Reg Force could fill the RSS positions, I would think there would Class B contracts.

This isn't the first time Scotty's done this. A while ago a sh*th#ad went by the name "Carl Gustav" wrote an artcle decrying...you guessed it... Class B reserves.

I find these "articles" and "letters" to be infuriating.  :rage:


----------



## George Wallace

You know darn well that said sh*th#ads are usually first in line for a Class B when they are facing retirement.  Ain't Karma a B_____.


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You know darn well that said sh*th#ads are usually first in line for a Class B when they are facing retirement.  Ain't Karma a B_____.



Yeah it is isn't it? The latest Espirit de Corps has this cr@phead spouting off about stuff he knows nothing about.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> Yeah it is isn't it? The latest Espirit de Corps has this cr@phead spouting off about stuff he knows nothing about.



And his opinion should be different from the rest of the rag why?


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> And his opinion should be different from the rest of the rag why?



Good point. Thank you.


----------



## Teeps74

Espirite de what?

Oh, that "look at me, I am so knowledgeable, I love me" rag.

My experience, those that call us "toons" out, and are openly prejudiced against us are, in a few words, suffering from inadequacies themselves. Rarely are they at the top of any merit list, and more likely where they are today because someone likes them, not because of tactical acumen (this goes both ways I warn, as some of us in the P Res do go on at length about the incompetence of the regular force too...).

I have no problems calling anyone who is ignorant out on their ignorance. Amazing what a few polite, and respectful words can usually accomplish.


----------



## Thompson_JM

I attempted... (key word: Attempted) to have a debate with one of the RegF guys I worked with overseas about why he had such a hate on for "F***ing Toons" as he referred to us.... 

His argument "Well you dont got the same training that we do.. so you dont really help us"

My Response " We begged, ranted, and yelled up to the heavens for training and qualifications that you could have given us during work-up... instead you stuck us in a corner and ignored us most of the time......."

Him "........"

Exactly....   

Most of the RegF guys were pretty good and we had very few problems... at least nothing on the surface... They may have hated us to the core, and there were times I got that impression from my Section Commander, but they were at least professional enough not to bring it into work with them...   

Essentially we also worked our asses off and showed them we were competent Soldiers... Just like a newbie to battalion we had to prove ourselves... once we did, we got on swimmingly with them for the most part. 




			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Not quite.  They are not required to keep the members employed but if the injuries are due to military service and the dr has declared them temp disabled then the members can apply for compensation.  If proven to be valid they may be paid up to the same as their full time pay while "disabled".



It's still a Dick Move.... Not all units are as supportive as mine... had our unit not had someone good at their job, who knew what they were doing, and actually gave a damn about the members, there would be two members collecting EI at best, and at worst spiraling into debt trying to pay their bills....  

Not to mention from what I heard about all of it, my unit got a lot of resistance from higher up about getting the members their money.

and yes. both members had Duty related Injuries to their Backs... Both requiring surgery.

They are being taken care of yes.... But I have little faith in My units Command at any level higher then my CO right now.... I still think 2 ASG just sees us as a Giant Budget toilet and the more they can save, the better....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Everyone,

Move away from the Reg\Reserve bullshit. It's been done to death here, and won't be tolerated anymore. Your posts have nothing to do with the thread. Leave it go and don't bring it up again.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## The Bread Guy

13 Apr 10 - the question and initial answer:


> Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On several occasions, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence have made the point that we are able to carry out dangerous operations abroad thanks to reservists, who sometimes account for as much as 25 per cent of the personnel involved and who have been killed and injured in these operations.  Could the minister explain why the budget for militia regiments was so massively cut after the reservists returned to Canada last fall, having served in the regular force? They are barely able to return to their regiment one day a month to stay in touch and maintain their knowledge and skills, which could be of use in civilian life. Will things continue this way?
> 
> Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as I have responded to the honourable senator in previous answers, the overall budget of the Department of National Defence was not cut.  I took the honourable senator's last question in this regard as notice. I apologize if I have not provided a delayed answer, but I hope the honourable senator noticed that, with regard to our military people serving abroad, we have introduced legislation, as reported in the media. That legislation is to extend parental leave to our service-men and service-women who are overseas and not able to take advantage of the Employment Insurance parental benefits because they are in a theatre of operation.  That benefit is one good thing we have done for our men and women in service. With regard to the reserves, I will take the question as notice.
> 
> Senator Dallaire: Honourable senators, the budget for reservists, which is an integral part of our operational capability, is managed as part of the operations and maintenance budget. This budgeting approach is unlike the regular force, which has a set budget line in a vote. It is structured in person years, and done in a rigorous fashion. The reservists' budgets are dependent on the O&M allocation, and absorbing budget cuts.  There was a massive budget cut, and I can provide figures. In as much as the leader is taking a look at protecting the reservists and the continuity of the reservists by making their personnel budgets — their salaries and so on — can she respond by making the reservists' budget a firm vote within the Department of National Defence and not part of O&M, like rations, ammunition and fuel?
> 
> Senator LeBreton: The honourable senator has me at a decided disadvantage with acronyms since he held a high position in the Canadian Forces and has a much better working knowledge of the ins and outs of the Forces than I will ever have.  I thank the honourable senator for the question. I will take it as notice and provide the response.



10 Jun 10 - the official response:


> _(Response to question raised by Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire on April 13, 2010)_
> 
> Our reservists are a vital part of the Canadian Forces, and the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring they have the resources and personnel they need to undertake their missions.
> 
> The Canadian Forces have been experiencing an unprecedented operational tempo both internationally and domestically. Maintaining this high level of readiness comes at a cost, which can create internal fiscal pressures. As a result, approximately $80 million of the army's budget was reallocated last year to support Canadian Forces operational priorities to replace critical equipment and infrastructure. These reallocations affected, among other things, reserve and regular training, building maintenance and the civilian salary wage envelope.
> 
> However, these were temporary reallocations and for the 2010-11 fiscal year, the army reserve budget remains on track. Overall, the army has received a steady increase in funding for the reserve program, from $257.2 million in the 2005-06 fiscal year, to an anticipated program allocation of $457.6 million for the 2011-12 fiscal year.
> 
> Canadians have demonstrated an overwhelming degree of moral support for their troops and supported the government in the assignment of additional financial resources to the Canadian Forces. For example, last summer, the government announced a commitment to acquire new and refurbished armoured vehicles that will ensure soldiers have the tools and the protection that they need.
> 
> The government is committed to implementing the Canada First defence strategy, which will ensure the Canadian Forces have the people, equipment, infrastructure and expertise required to defend Canada and Canadian interests now and well into the future. To achieve this, our strategy sets out a predictable, long-term funding framework and vision for the Canadian Forces.


----------

