# Exploiting reservists' love of their regiments



## John Nayduk (14 Jun 2007)

Here's a CO with his head on right.  Too bad there isn't more like him.  Well done Calgary Highlanders!

Exploiting reservists' love of their regiments
  
Bob Bergen 
Special to The Windsor Star 


Wednesday, June 13, 2007


It seems like such a simple concept, but capitalizing on Canadian Forces reservists' love for their regiments and sense of purpose could be both short-term and long-term solutions for its nationwide manpower shortage. The wonder is why the Canadian Forces don't take better advantage of that.

Here is why: Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently singled out the Calgary Highlanders and praised them for their extraordinary effort raising 64 soldiers who will deploy to Afghanistan in February 2008.

Perhaps only the Regiment de Voltigeurs in Quebec and one or two others match their success, according to Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, the Forces chief of land staff.

Those efforts are remarkable, given that reservists are civilians who have school, jobs and families which come first and part-time military duties that come second.

They usually train one night a week and one weekend a month.

To commit to a six-month deployment to Afghanistan is not just half a year's commitment -- it's more than a year, because they must undergo full-time predeployment training, as well.

As a result, although their rotation begins next February, 58 Highlanders are now training in either Shilo, Man., with the 2nd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry or with the Patricia's 1st Battalion in Edmonton.

The question is: What did the Highlanders do with such spectacular success that is different than what most other Canadian reservist units are doing?

Lt.-Col. Tom Manley, the Highlanders commanding officer, thinks it began when he took command in 2005.

SHORT OF COMMITMENTS

Manley knew the Forces were some 5,000 soldiers short of meeting its commitments over the next few years. It would need reservists -- lots of them -- to make up for that shortfall.

It's no secret that he set a goal to recruit and train a company of about 150 Highlanders who could be sent to Afghanistan as a formation as opposed to being scattered among regular force units.

When his soldiers learned of his plan to potentially send them as a formed company, they became excited and that excitement kept building.

Unlike regular force soldiers who are posted to different locations about every two years and sometimes to different organizations, most reservists stay for years in the cities and towns where they live and work.

They train with the same people for years, if not spend most of their lives with them.

"The soldiers are deeply in love with their regiment," Manley explains.

At the time, he had 114 volunteers for Afghanistan, which was admittedly short of a full company, but he was close. He gave them more than two years to think about the deployment.

That was enough time for them to think it through with their employers, to talk to their families and to re-arrange their lives sufficiently to make it possible.

"Any time you can take advantage of the incredible love the soldiers have for their regiment and service to their country, they will perform a higher level. That's essentially what we did."

In the end, Manley's plan to send a formed company of Highlanders to Afghanistan was rejected by the Forces' chain of command.

What the army said it needed was individual solders to fill individual tasks and, realistically, the Highlanders don't have LAV III drivers, crew commanders and gunners needed for a formed company.

There is also another reason that Manley is loathe to discuss, but you don't have to spend much time around soldiers to learn what it is.

ACUTELY AWARE

Strategically, Canadian Forces commanders are acutely aware of the effects casualties have on the Canadian public's support for the mission. The resulting negative publicity is thought bad enough when four soldiers from across Canada are killed in one day, let alone four soldiers from the same city.

Regardless, the idea of a formed Highlander company is a dead horse Manley has stopped beating.

The culmination of his effort, however, is 64 Highlanders who will be serving in Afghanistan next year.

Most of the Highlanders will augment other units, but at least 33 of them will be deployed together as a defence and security platoon that will defend the main camp at Kandahar and perform some convoy protection tasks. Another 10 will deploy with another defence and security platoon.

That's the short-term benefit.

The long-term benefit will take place when those soldiers return to Canada. Coupled with 27 Highlanders who served in Afghanistan in 2006, about half of the 185 Highlanders who normally parade will be Afghan veterans.

That means they will have war zone experience and the ability to train others to a level that hasn't been possible in more than half century.

The Highlanders' Afghanistan effort was sufficiently astounding to warrant the specific attention of the prime minister.

With the Canadian Forces some 5,000 short of its manpower needs, Canadian Forces commanders would be well-advised to pay attention, too.

Bob Bergen is research fellow with the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI) in Calgary. The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author. Learn more about the CDFAI and its research on the Internet at www.cdfai.org

© The Windsor Star 2007


----------



## pbi (14 Jun 2007)

I am very proud to be able to call Tom Manley a friend. When we served together in 1PPCLI, he demonstrated qualities that made him one of the very finest officers I've ever been privileged to serve with. When he decided to part ways with the Regular Army and pursue a civilian career, it was a great loss for us in the PPCLI but a great gain for the CalHi's (and a win-win for the Army...). I know that not everybody in the Army sees him in the same light, but to me the proof of his leadership ability is in the strength of his unit. As usual, it's leadership (or the lack of it...) that really makes or breaks a Res unit whose soldiers only make time in their civillian lives for military service because they are motivated to do it.

The only thing that worries me about this whole Res augmentation thing (as I've told Tom...) is just how long we can actually sustain it before the Res trg system chokes and the trained soldier well dries up.

Cheers


----------



## Harris (14 Jun 2007)

Good on the Calgary Highlanders.  I am curious however to learn how they will continue to train the soldiers that are left in the Unit for the year those soldiers are away.  My Unit has 19 away right now and we're feeling the pinch of not enough guys for all the training tasks.


----------



## Dissident (14 Jun 2007)

The same way we did it before.

Admittedly, I would assume units tend to send the more mature/qualified troops overseas, leaving behind junior tropps to fill in leadership positions. However, no one is irreplaceable, someone will (almost)always be there to step in. We are talking about a year, to a year and a half max. I have faith that almost every single resunit could cope with this demand for that period of time.

Feeling the pinch? A bit of pressure? Maybe the training is not as organized or compelling? Or some training has to be scaled back that year? Sure. I don't see this as a problem in the medium/long term.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 Jun 2007)

Keep in mind with the new component transfer policy the militia could stand to lose permanently senior NCO's and WO's with the sweetened deal for Afghan Vets being given a direct CT in the Rank and Qual held in theatre.


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

And in counterpoint to the above article I offer the following from today's Calgary Herald (shared with the usual dislciamer):



> PUBLICATION:  Calgary Herald
> DATE:  2007.06.14
> EDITION:  Final
> SECTION:  News
> ...


----------



## GAP (14 Jun 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Keep in mind with the new component transfer policy the militia could stand to lose permanently senior NCO's and WO's with the sweetened deal for Afghan Vets being given a direct CT in the Rank and Qual held in theatre.



Why would that be a bad thing, if it could open slots for new NCO's in the Reserve Units and gain already trained regular CF members? 

There's a growing curve, but do you see it insurmountable?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 Jun 2007)

not neccesarrily a bad thing per se, but put it in perspective, say the Cal Hi's send 60 some odd soldiers to TFA, and they all get CT offers and accept them, so a regiment goes from 158 troops roughly down to about 100 in 1 Roto, then next comes along and the next thing you after about 4 or 5 roto's the reg force has themselves a new kilted regiment and the Cal Highrs have no regiment as recruiting and promotions cannot keep up with attrition at that rate. Reserve units are having a hard to recruiting now (back to my rant about a peacetime recruiting system in a country at war) wait until they lose 1/2 a regiment in a tour and try to replace them, they'll be promoting Pte's to Sgt just to fill the holes (yes I know exageration is for dramatic effect) That said activating a whole regiment of volunteer reservists running them through roto training and deploying them together could have built in benefits.


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Jun 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Why would that be a bad thing, if it could open slots for new NCO's in the Reserve Units and gain already trained regular CF members?
> 
> There's a growing curve, but do you see it insurmountable?



From a Res POV...

I guess that there is two sides to every story. For larger PRes units it could be a very good thing. Especially if one considers the demographics of the membership.

_I know of a Regiment_ that experienced some rather phenomenal growth in the nineties. Many troops were picked up, often from successful Co-Op programs and they stayed. Those folks have progressed through the ranks and are now in the Sgts/WO's mess. 

But in many ways it is an embarrassment of riches... how to employ all these folks? What is the detrimental affect on the hard charger MCpls who are stuck waiting for WO Longname to retire (thus opening a spot on the OrBat). _Allowing this sort of CT frees up those spots..._

_On the other hand_, smaller units that have a high(er) turnover may rely on a smaller cadre... losing one of those to a CT could be very detrimental.



Of course, without saying, I wonder what the affects of this will be on Regular Force units, filled with hard working MCpls/Sgts who wake up one day to find the position they have coveted for many years has just been taken by a Sgt/WO who has CT'ed into the position for the Queen's Cornhuskers of Canada.....


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

And what compensation do the Reserve units get for attracting, recruiting, training, developing deploying and supporting this soldier up to the point where s/he CT's to the Reg F?

Nothing, that's what.  Not an extra dime towards attracting, recruiting, training or retaining his/her replacement.  S/he is a no cost Reg F recruit.

This is simply the Reserves getting raped over a barstool once again.


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Jun 2007)

I understand Haggis' point. 

_But what is the point of the Reserves in today's world?_

To exist as a 'Force in Being' for sure... but is it not also to serve as a source of trained soldiers to the Reg Force as well?

I guess my point is better to lose a PRes soldier to a RegForce unit than to a jealous mate or an ignorant civvie boss ...._<insert_the_any_one_of_the_(other)_million_reasons_that_PRes_soldiers_quit_here>_


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> _But what is the point of the Reserves in today's world?_
> 
> To exist as a 'Force in Being' for sure... but is it not also to serve as a source of trained soldiers to the Reg Force as well?
> 
> I guess my point is better to lose a PRes soldier to a RegForce unit



And don't get me wrong, Cpl Caldwell.  I agree with you.  But a Reserve unit has to see a return on investment.    Let's say that 1/2 of those deploying Calgary Highlanders accept a CT upon return.  How many potential COs, OCs, RSMs and CSMs has that unit lost, *without recompense*?

The Reserves do exist to augment the Reg F but it must be remembered that this initiative is to make up for shortfalls in CF recruiting for Reg F members.  Another point to consider is the the Reserves don't have the luxury of recruiting at the national level, as the Reg F does.  To rebuild a Reg F rifle platoon, CFRG has access to a potential pool of 32 million people. To re-build a Brockville Rifles platoon gutted by CTs, the Brocks have access to a potential pool of 30,000 people and are in direct competition with the Reg F.

I'm not saying that this CT plan is a bad one.  In fact I think in concept it's a great way for the CF to gain and retain critical skills.  But what irks me is that the resources to backfill those skills are not on the Armoury floor, yet the Reserves are being asked to backfill again and again.


----------



## Harris (14 Jun 2007)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Feeling the pinch? A bit of pressure? Maybe the training is not as organized or compelling? Or some training has to be scaled back that year? Sure. I don't see this as a problem in the medium/long term.



The trg is very organized and compelling IMO.  The issue is we require trained Sect Comd's and 2IC's to conduct the training and between Tours and Full time Class B or B/A posns, we don't necessarily have the leadership we require to conduct the training as effectively as it should be.  I have 90ish in my Company on paper but I've then got 17 on tour, another 15 or so in Full Time jobs (And most of them do show up for a lot fo the Unit Trg, but It's difficult to have different Sect Comds every weekend/Thur Night), and approx another 25 who are taking their basic training this summer.  That only leaves 33 or so who are available for Unit Training on a regular basis. Plus an additional 10 or so who are not necessarily the same people each training event.

Scaling back training is an option, but based on the tasks we've been given that isn't going to happen.  This coming year alone my Unit is participating in the Area IRU, TDBG, South Bound Trooper in Virginia over the Feb break, and normal Unit trg.  With the exception of South Bound Trooper, the remainder are mandated activities.  How do you scale that back?


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Jun 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Of course, without saying, I wonder what the affects of this will be on Regular Force units, filled with hard working MCpls/Sgts who wake up one day to find the position they have coveted for many years has just been taken by a Sgt/WO who has CT'ed into the position for the Queen's Cornhuskers of Canada.....



Personally, I have never seen a PRes soldier come over to the Reg Force and keep his rank and status, so this really wouldn't be an issue.  I've seen PRes soldiers come over on a task for whatever reason and keep the rank, but definitely not the status.  Meaning if they come as a Master-Jack, they keep it, but are given a position as weapons det commander or other closely supervised position with few subordinates, as they are unfamiliar with the gaining units SOP's.  But, that's just for a task.  A CT is a whole other matter.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jun 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Of course, without saying, I wonder what the affects of this will be on Regular Force units, filled with hard working MCpls/Sgts who wake up one day to find the position they have coveted for many years has just been taken by a Sgt/WO who has CT'ed into the position for the Queen's Cornhuskers of Canada.....



To my understanding, offers are only being made where a vacant Reg F position exists that the career manager has confirmed will not be filled / promoted into.

In addition, if Sgt Goombah of the Reserves just came off tour with the Reg F unit working as a section commander, I don't see a lot of friction or tension.


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Personally, I have never seen a PRes soldier come over to the Reg Force and keep his rank and status, so this really wouldn't be an issue.  I've seen PRes soldiers come over on a task for whatever reason and keep the rank, but definitely not the status.  Meaning if they come as a Master-Jack, they keep it, but are given a position as weapons det commander or other closely supervised position with few subordinates, as they are unfamiliar with the gaining units SOP's.  But, that's just for a task.  A CT is a whole other matter.



It's important to note that the trade, rank and IPC retained on CT will be the trade rank and IPC that the member held *while deployed*.

So, if a Res Inf Sgt, who deployed as a Inf Sgt, CTs he will stay an Inf Sgt in the Reg F.  If a Sgt took a drop in rank to MCpl, he will CT as a MCpl.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jun 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And don't get me wrong, Cpl Caldwell.  I agree with you.  But a Reserve unit has to see a return on investment.    Let's say that 1/2 of those deploying Calgary Highlanders accept a CT upon return.  How many potential COs, OCs, RSMs and CSMs has that unit lost, *without recompense*?



Hmm... they did get a CO from the Reg F - LCol Manley - and the Reg F did not request a single thin dime in return.  Or does this equation only work in one direction - Reg transfers to the Res should be free, while Res transfers to the Regs should see the losing unit getting something?


The overall number of CTs has remained more or less constant for the past several years - around 2% of the paid strength of the Army Reserve... but less than half stay in trade, meaning the Reg F saves only the cost of basic training.  Most of them are Pte/Cpl or 2Lt.  Reg F transfers to the Army Reserve are less than half that - but are much higher ranks, brining more experience with them.

I would be the first to argue we need to do more to encourage retiring Reg F members to join the Reserve - especially those just finishing their BE or CE.  I'd also argue that CTs to the Reg F are sign of success in a unit... but that, perhaps, will take us further down a rabbit hole...


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Jun 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Another point to consider is the the Reserves don't have the luxury of recruiting at the national level, as the Reg F does.  To rebuild a Reg F rifle platoon, CFRG has access to a potential pool of 32 million people. To re-build a Brockville Rifles platoon gutted by CTs, the Brocks have access to a potential pool of 30,000 people and are in direct competition with the Reg F.



That's an excellent point, never thought of it that way....



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> In addition, if Sgt Goombah of the Reserves just came off tour with the Reg F unit working as a section commander, I don't see a lot of friction or tension.



Quite right, but grousers will find a reason to complain. Will it be an 'across the board' thing; I doubt it, members are too professional to fall into that trap, but legends have a way of taking on a life of their own...




> It's important to note that the trade, rank and IPC retained on CT will be the trade rank and IPC that the member held while deployed.



And how many WO's, MWO's CWO's will be required on Roto, employed at rank and MOC, return, desire CT and 'find vacant Reg F position exists that the career manager has confirmed will not be filled / promoted into'??

Pretty small selection set there, I reckon. Now for Cpls and MCpls, perhaps a different kettle of fish.

_*Perspective, it's all about perspective....*_


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hmm... they did get a CO from the Reg F - LCol Manley - and the Reg F did not request a single thin dime in return.  Or does this equation only work in one direction - Reg transfers to the Res should be free, while Res transfers to the Regs should see the losing unit getting something?



No, they got a qualified re-enrolee from civvy street.  LCol Manley (and others like him), for whatever reason chose to leave the Reg F and pursue a civvy career in another field.  That the Res F managed to re-recruit them is a different matter and kudos to them for doing it, using their existing Reserve recruiting dollars. 

Here the Reg F is actively encouraging Reservists to CT.  In this particular case, I'm would argue that the PPCLI has far more succession depth in which to generate another LCol than does, say, the  N Sask R.



> The overall number of CTs has remained more or less constant for the past several years - around 2% of the paid strength of the Army Reserve... but less than half stay in trade, meaning the Reg F saves only the cost of basic training.  Most of them are Pte/Cpl or 2Lt.  Reg F transfers to the Army Reserve are less than half that - but are much higher ranks, brining more experience with them.



True, but this campaign is targeted at Cbt Arms MOSIDs with the aim of retaining them post CT in Cbt Arms MOSIDs.  The closest we've come to a similar program is the "Quick Pick" CTs of the mid 1990's.



> I would be the first to argue we need to do more to encourage retiring Reg F members to join the Reserve - especially those just finishing their BE or CE.


  I agree.  And this is likely how guys like LCol Manley ended up where he did.



> I'd also argue that CTs to the Reg F are sign of success in a unit... but that, perhaps, will take us further down a rabbit hole...


Indeed it would. As Harris alluded to earlier the success of a unit is measured by means such as: participation in Bde events, completion of IBTS and mandated training and the number of soldiers that can be recruited and retained.  A soldier who CTs to the Reg F is not "retained" in the purest interpretation of Reserve unit "success".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jun 2007)

Anology time........when a hockey player gets drafted [CTed if you will] by an NHL team, the league the draftee is from gets compensated. Now having done the NHL training camp and becoming a better player [soldier], but, for whatever reason, goes back the other way the NHL is not compensated.

I see it the same way, the Reg force recruits across the country with a large budget whilst the Res must recruit locally, sometimes with a *cough* less than stellar budget.
Why shouldn't "the show" pay back the Reserve unit for its training /recruiting costs?


----------



## pbi (14 Jun 2007)

Dissident said:
			
		

> The same way we did it before.



I'm not sure what "before" you're talking about. The last time Res units sent this many troops overseas was in WWII, after a General Mobilization had been ordered.  Unfortunately, since that time, we've placed increasingly greater training burdens on Res trying to reach NCO ranks, and made it more and more difficult to use unqualified soldiers in instruction or leadership roles. While these changes were all made with the best of intentions, and don't conflict too badly with the tempo of a peacetime Army, they make it more difficult to deal with situations like we now face. In wartime conditions most armies expedite training: I'm not sure we're doing this.

Cheers


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> While these changes were all made with the best of intentions, and don't conflict too badly with the tempo of a peacetime Army, they make it more difficult to deal with situations like we now face. In wartime conditions most armies expedite training: I'm not sure we're doing this.



That brings up an interesting dichotomy between the warfighters and the administrators.  Who is really "at war"?  Canada?  Surely not.  The CF?  Not as a whole.  The Army?  Units maybe, but not _the whole Army_.

We are stuck fighting a war on a peacetime mindset.  HQs will trot out the "we're fighting a war, you know" excuse for not getting things done, such as expediting training, but yet business remains the same.


----------



## Remius (14 Jun 2007)

Haggis, the Reg force is not actively encouraging the Res force to CT.  The CF is.  It's an organisational thing as a whole.  And what does the "Reg force" get back for all the reservists it processes, tests, interviews, conducts recruiting medicals etc etc.  Nothing.  Not too mention all the attraction events paid for by CFRG that reserve units piggy back on and ultimately benefit from.  One of those national tv adds focuses on domestic ops.

Also keep in mind the Pres normal attrition rate.  2 or 3 years is it?  Of those that go overseas, how many are actually going to stay in the CF upon their return?  How many stay on and how many CT? 

Through the reserves higher attrition rate, they already have a smaller pool to begin with.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jun 2007)

Also keep in mind the Pres normal attrition rate.  2 or 3 years is it?  Of those that go overseas, how many are actually going to stay in the CF upon their return?  How many stay on and how many CT? 

Through the reserves higher attrition rate, they already have a smaller pool to begin with. 

[/quote]

IMO this is the key to the issue. If a reservist deploys and has no job to return to, because he's a student or whatever, then he is less likely to stay in the reserves, or the army, and deploy on future tours or stay to add value to his unit. More often than not (like I did) they will disappear after a few years and join the regs, or move to find work/ educational opportunities elsewhere - hence the attrition rate. What we need is a comprehensive nation-wide initiative to get a reservist TWO JOBS. One in the reserves, and one in the local community that will help him/her establish themselves and keep contributing locally. This has to go beyond the usual 'grip and grin' type events as run by the CFLC, which don't really do much for finding Pte Snooks a job at the Post Office, or whatever. 

Implementing a  professional job finding program (job coaches, head hunters etc) for military personnel in local communities would go a long way to stabilizing reserve units, as well as providing regs leaving their full time jobs find a place in a local community where they can settle down and continue to contribute towards the reserves. there are hundreds of civilian organizations, little and large, who provide these services across the country, and it wouldn't take much to develop local contracts betwen units and these contractors.

We need to make it easier for reservists to stay and work, and soldier, locally.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2007)

How about trying to keep those veterns in the reserves with some incentives and also contracting some ex-reg force members to carry out specific training, this would need to be done on a case by case basis.


----------



## Yrys (14 Jun 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> this would need to be done on a case by case basis



Doesn't a care to care basis require to much logistics, since things seem to be strecht out ?

Or is a strong effort need to be put out so things get better ?


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Haggis, the Reg force is not actively encouraging the Res force to CT.  The CF is.



Semantics.  Where else are they going to CT to?? 



> And what does the "Reg force" get back for all the reservists it processes, tests, interviews, conducts recruiting medicals etc etc.  Nothing.  Not too mention all the attraction events paid for by CFRG that reserve units piggy back on and ultimately benefit from.  One of those national tv adds focuses on domestic ops.



That's CFRG's mandate.  CFRG employs an awful lot of Reservists who work in support of "the CF".



> Through the reserves higher attrition rate, they already have a smaller pool to begin with.



So why doesn't CFRG compensate Reserve units by allowing them to recruit additional members, above and beyond those fixed recruiting ceilings to replace those who CT?  Wait... that won't work, because the number of soldiers you send on ARC BMQ is directly tied to the number of staff you can provide... and all your potential staff have CT'd.


----------



## Remius (14 Jun 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Semantics.  Where else are they going to CT to??
> 
> That's CFRG's mandate.  CFRG employs an awful lot of Reservists who work in support of "the CF".
> 
> So why doesn't CFRG compensate Reserve units by allowing them to recruit additional members, above and beyond those fixed recruiting ceilings to replace those who CT?  Wait... that won't work, because the number of soldiers you send on ARC BMQ is directly tied to the number of staff you can provide... and all your potential staff have CT'd.



It's not semantics.  You made it sound like it's a reg vs res thing.  It's not.

Yes it is CFRG's mandate.  And those reservists are paid by CFRG.  Not their reserve units.  That's an awful lot of free labour for the reserve units that happen to own them.

CFRG does not generate those numbers.  The brigades do.  And actually that plan you mentioned has been proposed and can be implemented easily.

It's going to be a challenge yes, but it isn't all doom and gloom.  I think the reserves in the long run are benefiting from the increase in tempo.  Also a lot of these people going over have other jobs as well that they want to return to. Some are taking time away from better paying jobs to do this.  they have established families, homes etc and won't be keen on CTing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Doesn't a care to care basis require to much logistics, since things seem to be strecht out ?
> 
> Or is a strong effort need to be put out so things get better ?



People who have worthwhile skills could be tagged by their CO's upon release as desirable contractors with skills listed and likely post CF-plans. The training staff could contact them and make an offer to teach their skills while not having to rejoin. Computers should make this task fairly easy (one would hope)


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It's not semantics.  You made it sound like it's a reg vs res thing.  It's not.



OK, I'll concede that.



> Yes it is CFRG's mandate.  And those reservists are paid by CFRG.  Not their reserve units.  That's an awful lot of free labour for the reserve units that happen to own them.


You're working on the assumption that the employing CFRC/D has authorized them to parade with their parent unit and that it is practical for them to do so.  In many cases, like anyone on Class B outside their parent units, it's not.



> CFRG does not generate those numbers.  The brigades do.



Partly based on the number of files the supporting CFRCs/Ds allow them to process in a given timeframe.  Some units have to turn applicants away because the supporting CFRC doesn't have the capacity to process those files.  (And yes, I know CFRC's also have a finite capacity to deal with Reg F files as well.)


----------



## Remius (14 Jun 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> OK, I'll concede that.
> You're working on the assumption that the employing CFRC/D has authorized them to parade with their parent unit and that it is practical for them to do so.  In many cases, like anyone on Class B outside their parent units, it's not.
> 
> Partly based on the number of files the supporting CFRCs/Ds allow them to process in a given timeframe.  Some units have to turn applicants away because the supporting CFRC doesn't have the capacity to process those files.  (And yes, I know CFRC's also have a finite capacity to deal with Reg F files as well.)



I am working on that assumption because for the most part it's true.  One third of my unit's snr NCO mess is on Class B. And I'd say 90% of them parade regularly with the unit, more than some class A.  And the reservists that work at CFRC sign an agreement between the unit and the CFRC.  I'm a recuiter and have no problems parading.  I will admit though that this is in my neck of the woods.

Now, not working at a brigade, I don't know all the ins and outs of how they get their numbers.  Budget for training is probably the biggest factor.There is a finite capacity to process yes but normally numbers are given to the CFRCs on a yearly basis by whatever managing authority be it the brigades, Navres HQ etc etc. CFRCs try to achieve their targets with what they have.  Numbers fluctuate and CFRCs adapt.  Believe it or not but we process more for the army reserves than any other element.  This includes reg force army.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 Jun 2007)

also keep in mind the CT program I mentioned is only within CLS, it doesn't apply to the airforce or the navy. As for recruiting people thats not really the issue, the recruits are walking in thanks to the national media campaign and OP Connection our largest problem by and far is retention. We can't keep people interested. As for whats the reserve's return to contribution on being a reg force recruiting pool, well suck it up buttercup that is the role of the reserves to force generate combat capable troops to augment/support/supply the reg force in addtion to the conduct of domestic operations (which with the new Canada First defence plan doesn't really matter anymore as it is now a national mandate). however, I would like to see it revert somewhat back to the way it was in WWII with a twist Designate reserve units that will deploy together say instead of 1 VP you designate C Scot R, Cal Highs, RNR and supporting arms as a battle group and deploy them in between the reg force battle groups, keep soldiers together, the problem that comes with that is "mobilization" of entire reserve regiments which can only be done by the Governor General or Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Herself. Which in itself isn't a problem but creates a host of others such as public opinion and reserve force employment protection.


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I am working on that assumption because for the most part it's true.  One third of my unit's snr NCO mess is on Class B. And I'd say 90% of them parade regularly with the unit, more than some class A.  And the reservists that work at CFRC sign an agreement between the unit and the CFRC.  I'm a recuiter and have no problems parading.  I will admit though that this is in my neck of the woods.



Most Reservists who are employed on Class B within the geographical areas of their parent units still do parade.  However there are employing units who do not support the "divided loyalties" and any potential requests for short leave (as per CMP Instr 20-04 para 2.14(d)) since they are paying the bill.  I've seen it.  In most cases those members end up on someone's PRL.

In any case, I'm going to back off as this thread has been dragged too far from it's intended purpose, that of showcasing an exceptional effort by a fine unit.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 Jun 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> In any case, I'm going to back off as this thread has been dragged too far from it's intended purpose, that of showcasing an exceptional effort by a fine unit.


Or it could turn into a forum for other units to take thier example, or brigade groups to do the same


----------



## DG-41 (14 Jun 2007)

What is the current parading strength of the Calgary Highlanders?

Are they sending 64 of 120, or 64 of 250?

DG


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 Jun 2007)

64 of approx 158 (numbers down from 114 of 158 when they found out they couldn't deploy as a unit)


----------



## John Nayduk (16 Jun 2007)

Is that “on paper” strength or is it parading strength?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (16 Jun 2007)

thats parading, paper strengh including NES and ED&T is signifigantly higher


----------

