# Retention vs Recruiting



## Mediman14 (23 May 2018)

Throughout my career, I have seen multiple efforts on recruiting new members, depending on geographical location and population targeted there has been some success. However, correct me if I am wrong, from my perspective, not enough is being done to retain the members with all those years of experience.
   Given the ever changing society, I feel that the CAF need to do more to retain our members. Some examples of this is to change policy's currently in place, such as LWOP, postings or basically anything that affects the house hold. I do understand that things just can't change overnight due to the NDA or even the red tape in place.
    I know one thing that apparently will be out shortly, the Medical Category system, Release item 3B will probably not be as easy anymore. I think it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## dapaterson (23 May 2018)

What should the release rate be?

That's always my first question when people start to talk "retention".  In a hierarchical organization where, with few exceptions, people enter at the bottom and progress upwards, with almost no lateral entry, what do we want our attrition to look like?

Once we figure that out, and once we use the information already available, we can start talking about whether there is a retention problem.  But with attrition at 7% now, and historically (Note; Reg F only in this discussion), is an average of 14 years of service per retired member bad?  Do we want everyone to serve 35 years?


----------



## Mediman14 (23 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What should the release rate be?
> 
> That's always my first question when people start to talk "retention".  In a hierarchical organization where, with few exceptions, people enter at the bottom and progress upwards, with almost no lateral entry, what do we want our attrition to look like?
> 
> Once we figure that out, and once we use the information already available, we can start talking about whether there is a retention problem.  But with attrition at 7% now, and historically (Note; Reg F only in this discussion), is an average of 14 years of service per retired member bad?  Do we want everyone to serve 35 years?


I don't think 35 years for everyone is ideal depending on their motives in life. There is no set number to determine. I have personnel seen several outstanding leaders with so much experience calling it quits not because it's their time, but because they have put so much into the CAF, meaning, they look after the organization and it needs but never gotten the same back when needed. I have been in an audience of several Snr Officers saying how the CAF is one big family and how we should look after one another.


----------



## RCDtpr (23 May 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I don't think 35 years for everyone is ideal depending on their motives in life. There is no set number to determine. LI have personnel seen several outstanding leaders with so much experience calling it quits not because it's their time, but because they have put so much into the CAF, meaning, they look after the organization and it needs but never gotten the same back when needed. I have been in an audience of several Snr Officers saying how the CAF is one big family and how we should look after one another.



I think just by virtue of the size and nature of the CAF you will always have retention issues.

Having said that....the organization doesn’t always help itself.  I was once an incredibly proud soldier who put the CAF first.  These days I’ve realized it has no loyalty to me and thus I have no loyalty towards it.  I exist for the sole purpose of making a higher ups PER look good and because of that, this is a pay check and nothing more.  Having said that, I will always do what is asked of me to the best of my abilities as I have too much personal pride to do anything less.

As stated, I don’t think retention is anything that can ever be truly rectified due to things such as private sector paying more, more stability when it comes to setting up roots etc.  That all said, retention could potentially be helped, I believe, if the powers that be showed a bit of understanding every now and then to the “little guys.”

Just my .02


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 May 2018)

Grace has a point:

"You manage things; you lead people. We went overboard on management and forgot about leadership. It might help if we ran the MBAs out of Washington." -- Rear Adm. Grace Murray Hooper

If Generals had retention targets as well as recruiting targets, like in some private sector workplaces, tied to their compensation packages you'd probably see some changes. Fast.


----------



## dapaterson (23 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Grace has a point:
> 
> "You manage things; you lead people. We went overboard on management and forgot about leadership. It might help if we ran the MBAs out of Washington." -- Rear Adm. Grace Murray Hooper
> 
> If Generals had retention targets as well as recruiting targets, like in some private sector workplaces, tied to their compensation packages you'd probably see some changes. Fast.



And they'd be ill considered and ill conceived, because we manage within the framework of a fiscal year.  Should we retain everyone?  Should we say "Right, you're a 55 year old Maj with 35 years of service and no possibility for advancement and limited skills we need, so we'll keep you, meaning a strong captain will be back for a year or more because you're afraid of the outside world"?  Is it more important to keep that Capt with potential and another two decades to give, or the portly, stubborn, unimaginative major?

We don't have the luxury of unlimited positions.  Keeping everyone "just because" is institutionally damaging.  While the American model of Up or Out is problematic, our "Do what you want, stay as long as you want, we'll never fire you" is probably worse.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And they'd be ill considered and ill conceived, because we manage within the framework of a fiscal year.  Should we retain everyone?  Should we say "Right, you're a 55 year old Maj with 35 years of service and no possibility for advancement and limited skills we need, so we'll keep you, meaning a strong captain will be back for a year or more because you're afraid of the outside world"?  Is it more important to keep that Capt with potential and another two decades to give, or the portly, stubborn, unimaginative major?
> 
> We don't have the luxury of unlimited positions.  Keeping everyone "just because" is institutionally damaging.  While the American model of Up or Out is problematic, our "Do what you want, stay as long as you want, we'll never fire you" is probably worse.



And maybe the way we define 'positions' needs to change too:

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

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

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


https://hbr.org/2018/01/why-people-really-quit-their-jobs


----------



## dapaterson (24 May 2018)

True.  There does need to be greater flexibility, managed at lower levels.  But there also needs to be some higher level oversight, to keep, say, the Royal Regiment of Lac La BIche from being overrun with the lame, overweight, and incompetent.

Finding the perfect balance between strategic direction and local control remains the holy grail of HR...


Ultimately, if the military is nothing more than welfare in uniform, it's a failure.  If there is no larger purpose and loyalty to help individuals transition out when they can no longer serve / they are no longer needed, it's a failure.

But "Bob's a good guy, let's stash him somewhere until he ages out" does no favours to Bob or to those who serve with or under him, if he's not contributing in a way that requires him to be in uniform.


----------



## ballz (24 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ultimately, if the military is nothing more than welfare in uniform, it's a failure.  If there is no larger purpose and loyalty to help individuals transition out when they can no longer serve / they are no longer needed, it's a failure.
> 
> But "Bob's a good guy, let's stash him somewhere until he ages out" does no favours to Bob or to those who serve with or under him, if he's not contributing in a way that requires him to be in uniform.



Odd.... It looks like you just described our HR system but I could swear by how this conversation started out, you were arguing in favour of our current practices.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 May 2018)

Our instutitional model is based on everybody going up in rank with some attrition at all levels, and recruitment meeting overall attrition.  Our professional development is based on that.

The issue is that not everybody aspire to be a CAF CWO or a CDS and are perfectly happy at the working ranks.  There is no real mean or incentive (besides liking your job) to be that technical expert at the Cpl/MCpl/Capt/Maj ranks. Many countries have dual streams (leadership vs technical expert) where pay increases in the technical expert fields at the same rate it would if you were on the leadership stream but you retain a working rank.  Some countries (Australia) even allow going from technical expert to leadership stream without losing pay or seniority for rank.

The only issue this concept doesn't address is poor performers that do not fit in either a leadership stream nor a technical stream (ie: they are poor performers at their technical job and they are not fit for advancement in rank).  What I suggest is sort of a "up our out" hybrid solution where is after x time in your working rank, if it is deemed you likely won't make it in either stream, a CRB is convened to analyze if a. With more time, you can make it to the level required for leadership or tech streams, b. You would be a good candidate for VOT to another trade or c. You are not fit for duty in the CAF.


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The issue is that not everybody aspire to be a CAF CWO or a CDS and are perfectly happy at the working ranks.  There is no real mean or incentive (besides liking your job) to be that technical expert at the Cpl/MCpl/Capt/Maj ranks. Many countries have dual streams (leadership vs technical expert) where pay increases in the technical expert fields at the same rate it would if you were on the leadership stream but you retain a working rank.  Some countries (Australia) even allow going from technical expert to leadership stream without losing pay or seniority for rank.



I think Singapore has that, where there's a parallel "tech expert" rank structure to the military ranks.  Seems to be working for them.  

I've never heard of the Aussies having separate streams though when I was working with them, but that may have changed recently.


----------



## dapaterson (24 May 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> Odd.... It looks like you just described our HR system but I could swear by how this conversation started out, you were arguing in favour of our current practices.



I'm arguing against knee-jerk reactions.  Is there really a retention problem?  Or, as you age, do you see more peers leaving as they hit traditional exit points and thus your perception is skewed?

Do we need to up our HR game?  Yes.  But is there a huge retention crisis?  I'd argue not.  There may be specific occupations with issues, or certain control points we don't adequately exploit, but, if anything, I'd argue we've got a top-heavy structure that needs paring, and the follow on to that is a more ruthless culling.  So maybe my response to the question "Is there a retention problem?" is that yes, we have a retention problem - we retain too many people.


----------



## Remius (24 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm arguing against knee-jerk reactions.  Is there really a retention problem?  Or, as you age, do you see more peers leaving as they hit traditional exit points and thus your perception is skewed?
> 
> Do we need to up our HR game?  Yes.  But is there a huge retention crisis?  I'd argue not.  There may be specific occupations with issues, or certain control points we don't adequately exploit, but, if anything, I'd argue we've got a top-heavy structure that needs paring, and the follow on to that is a more ruthless culling.  So maybe my response to the question "Is there a retention problem?" is that yes, we have a retention problem - we retain too many people.



There is a section in this AG report from 2016 that deals with recruitment and retention.  There are problems in both. 

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201611_05_e_41834.html#p112

Specifically here:

Keeping the right people
The Regular Force did not implement its retention plan
Overall message
5.102 Overall, we found that the Regular Force experienced high levels of attrition in some occupations. Although it knew the causes of attrition, the Regular Force had not implemented its most recent overall retention strategy, nor had it developed specific strategies to respond to the challenges of each occupation.

5.103 This finding matters because the military’s operational capability depends on the Canadian Armed Forces’ ability to retain highly specialized, trained, and experienced military personnel on a long-term basis. It is also important because training and developing people is expensive, particularly in certain occupations; it is therefore more cost-effective for National Defence if, once trained, members stay with the Canadian Armed Forces.



One thing they highlight is high attrition rates in 23 trade groups.  Training wait times being an issue.  I remember some people finishing their 1st VIE without even completing their training and leaving.  

It's an interesting read but it dates from 2016.


----------



## Pusser (24 May 2018)

I often think there is entirely too much emphasis placed on long careers in the CAF.  I think instead, we should use a model that assumes that the majority of personnel will only serve for a short time (e.g. 5-10 years), with only a few being selected for further service.

We should first fix the recruiting system so that it doesn't take 18 months to enroll someone.  I'm curious if there has ever been a study to determine how many people are ultimately not enrolled as a result of something found during that 18 month background check.  Then we should compare that to the number of potential recruits we lose as they get fed up with the enrollment process.  We need to get people onto basic training faster.

Next, we front-end load too much training.  After basic training, they should only get enough environmental training to make them useful in a Navy, Army or Air Force unit.  This need not and in fact, should not be trade training. When they get to their first units, they should be given the opportunity to help and observe a variety of different areas (everybody can use a few extra hands to help with the mundane tasks).  After awhile, both the member and the CAF will have a better idea of the individuals aptitudes and desires.  Then, they can be selected for trade training.

All in all, we should recruit more, but actually retain less.  Only the best and most willing should be retained.  If folks realize that retention is competitive, they may up their game or move on.  It should be that only the Sgts-CWOs and Majs-Gens would be career men/women.  Everyone else would do a few years and get out.  This keeps fresh blood coming into the organization, yet retains the experience at levels where it's truly needed.  It would also likely mean that more Canadians would have a chance to serve in the armed forces and that has to be good thing.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (24 May 2018)

> All in all, we should recruit more, but actually retain less.  Only the best and most willing should be retained.  If folks realize that retention is competitive, they may up their game or move on.  It should be that only the Sgts-CWOs and Majs-Gens would be career men/women.  Everyone else would do a few years and get out.  This keeps fresh blood coming into the organization, yet retains the experience at levels where it's truly needed.  It would also likely mean that more Canadians would have a chance to serve in the armed forces and that has to be good thing.



This is good on paper but most Air Force trades can take up to 3/4 years of continuous training before being able to do the job. Also, we now see members being promoted to Sgt within 7/8 years of service. Again, I'm not sure if it'll fix anything to be honest, particularly within the RCAF.


----------



## Quirky (24 May 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Also, we now see members being promoted to Sgt within 7/8 years of service.



This doesn't help at all. We currently have a 4:1 ratio of Sgts to MCpls at our unit alone and there aren't enough good Cpls to promote. We take really good MCpl techs off the floor who just want to turn wrenches and be floor supervisors for the majority of their careers and stuff them into an office. There is nothing wrong with being a mechanic for your career, but when your pay tops out why bother staying in the CF?


----------



## Pusser (24 May 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> This is good on paper but most Air Force trades can take up to 3/4 years of continuous training before being able to do the job. Also, we now see members being promoted to Sgt within 7/8 years of service. Again, I'm not sure if it'll fix anything to be honest, particularly within the RCAF.



My idea is that I wouldn't give them any specific trade training in that first three years.  Admittedly, I'm not sure how or even if it would work for the Air Force, but I'm fairly confident, we could usefully employ personnel in the both the Army and Navy for three years without a great deal of trade training.  As it is, we currently recruit a sailor who can spend upwards of a year on training before he even sees his first ship.  Once at sea, although he will get a fair bit of time working in his trade, he will also spend a lot of time on general shipboard duties that anyone can do and have to be done (cleaning stations, watch on deck, scullery, laundry, etc).  Why spend a lot of time in training someone for a job they will only get to do for part of the time?

I envision a system where people are recruited for a three year term.  They are given basic military and environmental training and then employed on general duties for the duration of their three years with only minimal follow-on training.  In that three years, they would get exposure to all aspects of service life in their respective environments, which in the case of the Navy would include spending time with all departments on board (e.g. spend a few months/weeks helping the stokers clean engines, general duties in the galley, etc.).  The idea would be for them to get good exposure to everything that goes on onboard a ship.  They would also spend some time ashore helping (and learning about) supporting ships.  Add in to all of this would be time spent on "public duties" (e.g. ceremonial guards - instead of hitting up units to provide).  The idea is that at the end of the three years, they've had a chance to look at us and we've had a chance to look at them in order for everyone to make better and more informed choices about what trade they wish to pursue.  I'm sure we could do something similar for the Army in the sense that everyone could spend a few months in each of the combat arms as well as a service battalion, etc.

I would like to see this as sort of voluntary national service program, where people join with the understanding that they will only receive minimal training, low pay, be employed in mostly mundane tasks (with a few opportunities for excitement - port visits) and will likely have to live in single quarters.  Doesn't sound too appealing, but I think we could add the following incentive.  If you satisfactorily complete your three years, the following options become available:

1) release and then be provided with full tuition to complete a bachelor degree, diploma or other certificate at any approved Canadian post-secondary institution;

2) continue to serve with a retention bonus (essentially equivalent to the amount of tuition the ones releasing would get) and immediately sent on trade training; or

3) continue to serve with a  retention bonus and sent on officer training.

It would seem to me that providing an opportunity for people to earn their entire tuition would lead to no shortage of applicants and there would be the following benefits to both the individual and the country:

1)  a far greater number of people would end up serving in the CAF, which can't be a bad thing.  Public support for the CAF increases if more people have exposure to military service;

2)  better informed choices can be made by both the individuals and the CAF as to the best path (individuals will have a better understanding of the trades they may wish to pursue.  The CAF will have a better idea of the individual's suitability);

3)  more personnel available for public duties (yes, this is important because it's about public engagement, which leads to better support from the public); and

4)  all potential officers could benefit from a little time in the ranks.


----------



## ballz (24 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm arguing against knee-jerk reactions.  Is there really a retention problem?  Or, as you age, do you see more peers leaving as they hit traditional exit points and thus your perception is skewed?
> 
> Do we need to up our HR game?  Yes.  But is there a huge retention crisis?  I'd argue not.  There may be specific occupations with issues, or certain control points we don't adequately exploit, but, if anything, I'd argue we've got a top-heavy structure that needs paring, and the follow on to that is a more ruthless culling.  So maybe my response to the question "Is there a retention problem?" is that yes, we have a retention problem - we retain too many people.



I'm of the opinion we retain too many of the wrong people simply because the right people have other/better options and that's where we need to improve... the CAF makes it absolutely torturous, or impossible, to try and pursue anything outside of your first job. It's set up for one thing... enroll as "x," get trained as "x," and follow career progression in "x" trade until retirement.

I don't think the top-heavy part is a retention issue, I think that's a leadership issue (i.e. we don't know how to run anything efficiently, particularly those who "run" things), but then combine that with the retention issue at lower levels which eventually feed all those bloated HQs and yeah, it's bad.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 May 2018)

Pusser, we're already having a struggle to attract people.  What makes you think by saying "Hey! we won't really train you and we'll probably kick your ass out the door after a couple of years" will have them beating down our doors. I can see that flying like a lead balloon.

You want to get kids in for a few years to spot the talent and dump the rest?  Then you better have a better game plan.  Either offer a very sweet post CAF college/university/trade school re-education deal which will make several years of demeaning stations worth while.  That, or introduce conscription where everybody does a couple years, gets "some re-education benefit or the like" and rejoins Canadian society with some life skills and discipline and we cherry pick the talent to offer them careers.

Your suggestion smells of the same good idea fairy brain storm of signing on kids for 5 years of the less than inspiring lower rank experiences of PAT Platoon, demeaning stations etc etc.  The kids are then expected to sign for another 20 years after that.  I know of kids who are saying "fuck that" and are completing their contracts and running.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 May 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The kids are then expected to sign for another 20 years after that.  I know of kids who are saying "frig that" and are completing their contracts and running.



All government jobs, and many private sector/ unionized jobs, are having the same issue. 

It seems that those darned millennials just don't see much value in the 'Golden Handcuffs' (while they treat you like cr&p for 25 years) anymore.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> All government jobs, and many private sector/ unionized jobs, are having the same issue.
> 
> It seems that those darned millennials just don't see much value in the 'Golden Handcuffs' (while they treat you like cr&p for 25 years) anymore.



Not like we were.


----------



## mariomike (24 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> All government jobs, and many private sector/ unionized jobs, are having the same issue.



Why is that? 35 years at a 2 per cent accrual rate gets you a 70 per cent pension with full benefits.

( 30 years with the 2.33 per cent accrual rate. )

May seem like a long haul, but "time flies when you're having fun."


----------



## Mediman14 (24 May 2018)

May seem like a long haul, but "time flies when you're having fun."  
[/quote]

Fun? Ok.


----------



## mariomike (24 May 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Fun? Ok.



I was replying to the highlighted part. Personal enjoyment may vary.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 May 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Why is that? 35 years at a 2 per cent accrual rate gets you a 70 per cent pension with full benefits.
> 
> ( 30 years with the 2.33 per cent accrual rate. )
> 
> May seem like a long haul, but "time flies when you're having fun."



Depending upon how old one is when they join, they may or may not be able to reach 35 years.  Regardless of what age you join, there isn't always much fun to be had at the bottom of the food chain.  And thus a part reason for kids running for the exits.  

I won't speak for the other two flavours, but there has been a downward spiral on the fun meter in the navy since l remustered in the 90's.  Increasingly the last few years the pace has quickened and l have had it described as a death by a thousand cuts.  

This also seems to be the feedback I've heard from all three groups, OR/C&PO/WR.  Of course there are those who would disagree as they still have fuel reading in the fun meter but again, I'm hearing increasing numbers of folks who's tanks are running dry.

Add in the manning changes that are being brought in to the detriment of moral in some trades and you now have a three fold increase in releases by legacy trades.  

On a lighter note, the letters being sent to my legacy trade retirees by a certain someone is causing gales of merriment at the appeal to return to the RCN and the new reality.


----------



## mariomike (24 May 2018)

Like I said, "Personal enjoyment may vary."

My sister, and her husband, both stayed in for the whole ride. But, they were in their teens when they joined, and everyone is different.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 May 2018)

Some interesting comments in this thread but I think we are conflating a number of different issues that aren't necessarily interrelated.

The first problem I see with the retention issue is we haven't structured our force properly to necessarily do what we want or need it to do.  What do I mean when I say this?

Well a big issue is do we want an Armed Forces that is optimized for mobilization or expeditionary operations?  As is Canadian tradition, we try and do it all and end up doing a mediocre job institutionally as a result.

The Army talks a big game about expeditionary operations but is poorly optimized for it.  Our regular units are all undermanned in that they aren't kept at actual fighting strength and they don't have the required numbers of equipment and vehicles to even properly equip the manpower they do have.  

We then have a very large Reserve Force with 100+ units spread all across the country that all have associated infrastructure, personnel and resources costs associated with them that are even more poorly equipped than the Regular Force.  The immediate operational value of the Reserves for expeditionary operations is pretty much zero as they have no actual equipment and can only provide individual augmentation in ones and twos for any operation we do conduct.  Ditto the Navy with their 20+ stone frigates in bastions of Maritime Activity like Regina, Saskatchewan.  

All this to say, we spend enormous amounts of money and resources simply trying to administer and manage this gigantic organization of people with very little output to show for it at the end of the day.  We also have stupid policies like "25% of personnel serving on named operations must be Reservists" when we have thousands of Regular Force members sitting around in Garrisons twiddling their thumbs for years at a time in some cases.  

We can either be a mobilization force or an expeditionary force, we don't have the money or need to be both.  The CAF needs to pick one and get rid of the rest.  

Either way, I think we could cut the Army by a significant margin (The Regular Navy and Air Force should remain as is) and see no loss in actual capability output.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Some interesting comments in this thread but ...
> 
> The Army talks a big game about expeditionary operations but is poorly optimized for it.  *Our regular units are all undermanned in that they aren't kept at actual fighting strength and they don't have the required numbers of equipment and vehicles to even properly equip the manpower they do have.*
> ...




Which means that they can never be properly or, even, adequately trained for combat operations, which means that our whole _force generation_ / _force employment_ model is a sad, silly farce that just creates jobs (welfare, in a way) for admirals and generals, because we don't 'generate' useful forces.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 May 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The immediate operational value of the Reserves for expeditionary operations is pretty much zero as they have no actual equipment and can only provide individual augmentation in ones and twos for any operation we do conduct.  Ditto the Navy with their 20+ stone frigates in bastions of Maritime Activity like Regina, Saskatchewan.



I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by HB in his last post.

I just wish to particularize a few naval point, if I may.

First, the naval reserves actually have a lot of the equipment for "expeditionary" if in that you include support of civilian authorities. Witness the Winnipeg floods around the turn of the millennium. About 75% of the deployed boat assets came from the NAVRES, and nearly 45% of personnel to operate also.

But it remains true that the naval reserves, just like the militia, remains organized on model based in World War era's view of augmentation and with a primary purpose of "being visible" in their community.

Well, they are not anymore. Who in Montreal, Halifax, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary or Toronto even knows anything about the activities of Naval reserve Divisions located there?

The year I left the reserves to go on SRR, I had put up a paper on what I felt was the necessary re-organization of NAVRES to fulfill the upcoming role of manning the MCDV's. These were much more sophisticated vessels than the old Gate Vessels, and thus, more advanced training, individual and team, would be required, and extensive use of simulators would be required. For me, any time a reservist spent doing "admin" nights stuff was a waste of training time, as even the higher ranks needed to keep their training up.

So I proposed disposing of all the NAVRES units and to create five Regional Reserve Training Centers (Halifax for the Atlantic provinces, Esquimalt in the West, and then Quebec City for Quebec (already half built as NAVRES HQ and CFFS Qc, then Hamilton for Ontario (kick the Army out of the base at water's edge - it used to belong to the Navy before unification) and then either the Peg or Calgary for the prairies) These training centre would concentrate the regular forces resources currently assigned to support reserve units and they would be the ones doing all of the support administration for reservists for their region and providing the instructors/standards. The reservists would do their basic at St- Jean, like everybody else, and after passing basic, would be contacted by their Training Centre for further administration of their career. All reservist from the given region would basically receive, once a year, a schedule telling him or her which week-end (one every month) to report to the training centre and what training he/she would do on that week-end, and then, when he/she would be expected to report for two weeks full training. Any other assignment would also be coordinated by those centre.

It's basically the US system. This way, you pool and make the Reg force support more efficient, the Training centres would concentrate and use efficiently the expensive training simulators required, and make it possible to dispose of most NAVRES units. 

I don't know what happened to this paper (other than the C.O. sent it up to Quebec with a less than enthusiastic cover letter - then I retired before learning of the results, though it's obvious by now it wasn't implemented.  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I think Singapore has that, where there's a parallel "tech expert" rank structure to the military ranks.  Seems to be working for them.
> 
> I've never heard of the Aussies having separate streams though when I was working with them, but that may have changed recently.



Also worth a mention; the RAF "Professional Aircrew" stream.  I'd sign up on something like that to stay flying, but staying flying your whole career = lower pension amount on retirement.  Career aircrew could form the core of a fleet or Sqn's corporate knowledge of air ops, but we insist on doing things the opposite, always in detriment to the operational sqn's.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Next, we front-end load too much training.  After basic training, they should only get enough environmental training to make them useful in a Navy, Army or Air Force unit.  This need not and in fact, should not be trade training. When they get to their first units, they should be given the opportunity to help and observe a variety of different areas (everybody can use a few extra hands to help with the mundane tasks).  After awhile, both the member and the CAF will have a better idea of the individuals aptitudes and desires.  Then, they can be selected for trade training.



This would not work for all trades;  some trades like mine take a fairly significant amount of time to get someone up to snuff AFTER initial trades training.  If we delayed it any longer, people would be coming off their "type" course and basically be able to release after a 5 year VIE.



> All in all, we should recruit more, but actually retain less.  Only the best and most willing should be retained.  If folks realize that retention is competitive, they may up their game or move on.  It should be that only the Sgts-CWOs and Majs-Gens would be career men/women.  Everyone else would do a few years and get out.  This keeps fresh blood coming into the organization, yet retains the experience at levels where it's truly needed.  It would also likely mean that more Canadians would have a chance to serve in the armed forces and that has to be good thing.



Opposite side of the coin;  how many people would decide to not join because there was a sense that they couldn't make a career out of the military?  Corporate knowledge exists lower than the Sgt and/or Maj level.  I'd rather keep the MCpls, Cpls, and Capts with years and years of experience and knowledge over the "more Canadians would have the chance to serve" aspect.  I don't see that as a benefit as a standalone side effect of kicking people out because they won't ever make it to MWO or LCol.


----------



## MAJONES (25 May 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion we retain too many of the wrong people simply because the right people have other/better options and that's where we need to improve...



Spot on.  It leads to a viscous circle; Junior members get annoyed with lack-lustre mid-level to senior leadership.  The most talented of our junior members have better options outside the CF so they pull the pin before they get promoted thus leaving less talent to promote into mid level leadership.  Mid level leadership does not improve, (or even deteriorates).  The same cycle occurs for the jump from mid-level leadership to senior leadership.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> My idea is that I wouldn't give them any specific trade training in that first three years.  Admittedly, I'm not sure how or even if it would work for the Air Force, but I'm fairly confident, we could usefully employ personnel in the both the Army and Navy for three years without a great deal of trade training.  As it is, we currently recruit a sailor who can spend upwards of a year on training before he even sees his first ship.  Once at sea, although he will get a fair bit of time working in his trade, he will also spend a lot of time on general shipboard duties that anyone can do and have to be done (cleaning stations, watch on deck, scullery, laundry, etc).  Why spend a lot of time in training someone for a job they will only get to do for part of the time?
> 
> I envision a system where people are recruited for a three year term.  They are given basic military and environmental training and then employed on general duties for the duration of their three years with only minimal follow-on training.  In that three years, they would get exposure to all aspects of service life in their respective environments, which in the case of the Navy would include spending time with all departments on board (e.g. spend a few months/weeks helping the stokers clean engines, general duties in the galley, etc.).  The idea would be for them to get good exposure to everything that goes on onboard a ship.  They would also spend some time ashore helping (and learning about) supporting ships.  Add in to all of this would be time spent on "public duties" (e.g. ceremonial guards - instead of hitting up units to provide).  The idea is that at the end of the three years, they've had a chance to look at us and we've had a chance to look at them in order for everyone to make better and more informed choices about what trade they wish to pursue.  I'm sure we could do something similar for the Army in the sense that everyone could spend a few months in each of the combat arms as well as a service battalion, etc.



Sorry, I don't believe we have a big enough force to allow people to go on a 3 year GD program.  I also think you'd find that a lot of people walking into recruiting centers might rethink the CAF as a career if they were told "oh, know, you won't be a Naval Electronics Technician until after 3 years minimum of scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations.

Not sure where you are posted, but it strikes me that it may have been a while since you've been at a line unit and lead the new generation of young people coming into the CAF...


----------



## Remius (25 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't believe we have a big enough force to allow people to go on a 3 year GD program.  I also think you'd find that a lot of people walking into recruiting centers might rethink the CAF as a career if they were told "oh, know, you won't be a Naval Electronics Technician until after 3 years minimum of scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations.
> 
> Not sure where you are posted, but it strikes me that it may have been a while since you've been at a line unit and lead the new generation of young people coming into the CAF...



Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.


----------



## Swingline1984 (25 May 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.



+1

Read the ACISS thread if you want a real life example of what deleting all sense of purpose can do to an occupation.


----------



## Quirky (25 May 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.



I believe after those three years there would be some sort of incentive - paid for secondary education or a signing bonus if you decide to continue with the CF. The whole point is to get people into the CF in the first place.

At our current system it just takes too long to do anything. Recruiting wait times - a disaster (I applied while still in high school June 2013 and out of the blue got an offer in Sept 2014). On the air tech side of things we need to do away with QL3s completely, integrate common core aspects into on-fleet courses. Why am I being taught how to pull blades off a helicopter if I'm going into the fighter world? It's a waste of time and the civilian world doesn't recognise our QL3s as AME training anymore anyway. The posting system needs to change too, I should know where my first posting is before basic training. After St. Jean send me directly to my unit where I can feel useful right away. This way people can be evaluated on simple tasks, only then should we be offering them contract extensions past the three years. You accept? Good, you are sent on your fleet training and off you go. You deny? Good, here is $x for post secondary education but you are on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CF for three years.


----------



## RCDtpr (25 May 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I believe after those three years there would be some sort of incentive - paid for secondary education or a signing bonus if you decide to continue with the CF. The whole point is to get people into the CF in the first place.
> 
> At our current system it just takes too long to do anything. Recruiting wait times - a disaster (I applied while still in high school June 2013 and out of the blue got an offer in Sept 2014). On the air tech side of things we need to do away with QL3s completely, integrate common core aspects into on-fleet courses. Why am I being taught how to pull blades off a helicopter if I'm going into the fighter world? It's a waste of time and the civilian world doesn't recognise our QL3s as AME training anymore anyway. The posting system needs to change too, I should know where my first posting is before basic training. After St. Jean send me directly to my unit where I can feel useful right away. This way people can be evaluated on simple tasks, only then should we be offering them contract extensions past the three years. You accept? Good, you are sent on your fleet training and off you go. You deny? Good, here is $x for post secondary education but you are on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CF for three years.



So you’re proposing the CAF invest money in someone to get them BMQ qualified, pay them for three years to do GD work, then pay for their education when they release even though at no point have they ever been trade qualified and therefore not really that useful in the grand scheme of things?  (Just because one may feel useful.....does not mean they are useful)

I don’t understand your “you’re on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CAF for the three years” comment.  Are you saying they would have to pay back their salary during that time thus rendering their last three years of work as having no compensation for them?

Sounds like a fiscal nightmare at best and would completely cripple certain (if not all) trades.  I joined because I wanted to go to Afghanistan.  If I had been told by recruiting “ok join, and in three years you may or may not get loaded onto your trades training to learn to how to do armoured stuff, and then a year or two after that you may get to go on tour” I can assure you I would have walked out of the recruiting office and I imagine most others would as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 May 2018)

Sounds like this recruiting and retention thing is mostly about the 'people stuff':

Life as a Private

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command asked RAND Arroyo Center to undertake research to improve its understanding of soldiers' motivations to join the Army, and how the reality of Army life matches up with expectations. Who joins, why, and how satisfied are they with their decisions? This study's portrayal of the U.S. Army private could serve as an educational tool for a variety of important audiences, such as Army senior leadership, junior officers, noncommissioned officers, and prospective new recruits.

Key Findings

Soldiers Join the Army for Family, Institutional, and Occupational Reasons
•	The importance of family is a recurring feature in the narratives of soldiers.
•	Soldiers cite call to serve and perception of honor, but also thirst for adventure, benefits, and pay.

Many Soldiers Value the Opportunity to Become a Military Professional
•	Most soldiers in the research sample acknowledged the unique benefits that they got from Army service.
•	Despite generally favorable experiences overall, soldiers are frustrated by the bureaucratic characteristics of work in the Army.
•	The information soldiers consume prior to joining their first unit may influence expectations about Army service; more accurate information than that derived from action movies might improve satisfaction with their real experience.

Soldiers Value Relationships with Other Soldiers as a Critical Feature of Army Life
•	The critical importance of camaraderie and good small-unit leadership suggests avenues to enhance soldier recruitment and retention.

Most Soldiers Enjoy Positive Well-Being and Satisfying Social Lives
•	Most soldiers in the research sample said that their leadership and peers were an important source of support.
•	In fact, leadership and fellow soldiers were cited as the most important source of motivation, camaraderie, and overall social support.

Soldiers in the Sample Were Satisfied with Army Life
•	A variety of factors affect soldiers' intent to reenlist, such as family concerns, injuries, promotions, civilian opportunities, and the likelihood of deploying to war. The majority of soldiers believed their Army service would help them find future work.

Recommendations
•	Consider emphasizing occupational benefits and adding social bonds to the current Army Value Proposition (AVP).
•	Highlight social bonds as part of reenlistment campaigns.
•	Consider incentivizing first-term soldiers who successfully recruit from their friends and peer networks.
•	Ensure recruiters provide accurate information about military occupational specialties.
•	Improve the accuracy of information about Army life that new recruits receive.
•	Following Basic Combat Training/Advanced Individual Training and One-Station Unit Training, provide accurate information about installations and unit assignments.
•	Maintain or expand recruitment programs that build parental support.
•	Help leaders engage soldiers in relevant and educational tasks and otherwise use soldiers' time more effectively.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2252.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail#download


----------



## RCDtpr (25 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Sounds like this recruiting and retention thing is mostly about the 'people stuff':
> 
> Life as a Private
> 
> ...



I understand this is American, but I find it interesting their research indicates younger soldiers put an emphasis on comraderie and social aspects considering everytime I walk through shacks they are playing video games and not talking to each other.


----------



## Pusser (25 May 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Either offer a very sweet post CAF college/university/trade school re-education deal which will make several years of demeaning stations worth while.



Did you miss the part where I said exactly that?  

Some folks seem to think I'm recommending that we enroll people for three years to paint rocks.  Far from it.  I'm arguing that first and foremost, we need to train personnel to be sailors, soldiers and air people.  After that, they can be usefully employed doing real jobs that don't require a lot of specialized training AND be exposed to the more detailed tasks that will require that more specialized training.  The key to this is that folks need to be sent to front line units and deployed sooner, rather than later.  A sailor doesn't need to complete his QL3 WEng Tech course before he joins the scullery party of his first ship, so why not wait until he's spent some time at sea and had a chance to observe and help out in all the Departments on board before he selects a trade?  More experience makes for better choices.  

I'm not talking about make-work projects.  The jobs I envision these folks doing are jobs that need to be done and are being done by our most junior personnel.  I just don't see the point of spending thousands of dollars in training someone for a technical trade right at the beginning when a large part of their first three years are going to be spent on the mundane tasks anyway.  Furthermore, instead of training for trades that people chose based on recruiting pamphlets and videos, why not give folks a chance to actually work alongside people already in those trades in order to get a better feel for what they're getting themselves into?  By doing this, both the CAF and the individual will have a better opportunity to make more informed decisions.  

The mundane tasks need to be done anyway and the most junior people are going to do them.  Let's get a better bang for our training buck by delaying the more intense, difficult and expensive (i.e. trade) training until a point where we can all make better decisions.

You don't necessarily entice people to do something by making it easier.  Sometimes you do it by making it a challenge.  I would argue that you will get a better overall recruit by emphasizing how challenging it will be, rather than how comfortable.


----------



## Pusser (25 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't believe we have a big enough force to allow people to go on a 3 year GD program.  I also think you'd find that a lot of people walking into recruiting centers might rethink the CAF as a career if they were told "oh, know, you won't be a Naval Electronics Technician until after 3 years minimum of scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations.
> 
> Not sure where you are posted, but it strikes me that it may have been a while since you've been at a line unit and lead the new generation of young people coming into the CAF...



However, the reality is that we currently train people for these great jobs, but they actually then end up scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations a good part of the time anyway.  In my plan, at least we're up front about it and then dangle a significant carrot at the end.  Right now, we see a lot of folks leaving at the end of their BEs and taking their expensive training with them.  Perhaps, if we expose them to the military lifestyle, before we invest heavily in training, then better decisions can be made and the ones who stay for the later training will be more inclined to make a career of it.

I realize I speak heresy, but it's not like the current system is working so well that there's no room for different ideas.

PS:  I believe the Royal Australian Navy has a "gap year" program that does something similar to what I've described.


----------



## Remius (25 May 2018)

Well I think you have it partially right.  After their VIE anyone should be allowed to remuster if they can qualify for another trade.

When I was a recruiter 10+ years ago many people up and left because their trade wouldn't let them transfer to something else.   There should be a program that allows people to sign up for any of the grunt jobs (infantry armour, boatswain etc) with the promise that after their VIE and if they can qualify to remuster to another trade (targeted trades could be a consideration).  In fact some trades should go back to being remuster only.  Or sign on for longer in your trade with an educational bonus or re-signing bonus.


----------



## Quirky (25 May 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> So you’re proposing the CAF invest money in someone to get them BMQ qualified, pay them for three years to do GD work, then pay for their education when they release even though at no point have they ever been trade qualified and therefore not really that useful in the grand scheme of things?



Not GD work, have them do job shadowing or OJT. 

[qoute]I don’t understand your “you’re on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CAF for the three years” comment.  Are you saying they would have to pay back their salary during that time thus rendering their last three years of work as having no compensation for them?[/qoute]

Salary they can keep.

[qoute]Sounds like a fiscal nightmare at best and would completely cripple certain (if not all) trades.  I joined because I wanted to go to Afghanistan.  If I had been told by recruiting “ok join, and in three years you may or may not get loaded onto your trades training to learn to how to do armoured stuff, and then a year or two after that you may get to go on tour” I can assure you I would have walked out of the recruiting office and I imagine most others would as well.
[/quote]

This wouldn’t apply to all trades since some trades have higher costs than others to make someone trades qualified. We already waste how much money keeping people on warrior/PAT platoons for god knows how long, not to mention the untold number of shit pumps who couldn’t be trusted to flip burgers let alone turn wrenches. Our biggest problem right now has already been mentioned in this thread. The good people who you want in charge release because they are frustrated with all idiots making the same money and benefits for doing more work. What’s the saying, you are rewarded for your hardwork with more work?


----------



## mariomike (25 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The U.S. Army Recruiting Command asked RAND Arroyo Center to undertake research to improve its understanding of soldiers' motivations to join the Army, and how the reality of Army life matches up with expectations.





> The majority of soldiers believed their Army service would help them find future work.
> https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2252.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail#download



They have reason to, in the US.

QUOTE
Military Veterans

The NYPD has a special place for those who have served, and we value the training, skills and management experience of military personnel, which is one of the main reasons we actively recruit veterans.

Additional benefits available to military veterans include:
•Veterans can earn GI Bill benefits in addition to their salary during their first two years.
•Police Officer Exam scores are kept on file indefinitely. Upon leaving the U.S. Armed Forces, veterans have 6 months to start the hiring process.
•Veterans can add 4 years to the maximum hiring age, or 6 years if they served during war or national emergency. This applies only to veterans under age 40.
•Veterans can buy back three years of their military time to be applied to their NYPD retirement.
•Officers who are active reservists are allowed 30 paid military days per year, in addition to their vacation time.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-benefits.page

LAPD
MILITARY CREDITS

"Military credits (5 points) are normally given only for a five-year period following the date of separation from active duty. If you served on active duty status in the U.S military during any one of the following periods, you may qualify to have the five additional veterans points added to your Personal Qualifications Essay (PQE) score."


END QUOTE

Although, regarding candidates with PTSD claims,

QUOTE

New York, New York—Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a national nonprofit legal center, filed a Charge of Discrimination for Julio Andrade, a former Marine, after the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) denied him a job as a Fire Fighter because of a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) he received at the time of his honorable discharge from service in the Iraq war, approximately 8 years earlier.
http://dralegal.org/featured/fdny-violates-ada-pre-judging-veteran-applicants-unfit/

"Julio Andrade passed every test to be a firefighter, but a department psychiatrist DQ’d the Marine with stereotypes like ‘people with PTSD can’t socialize’ "

END QUOTE

But, in Toronto,

QUOTE

Q: I am a current/past member of the military. Do I get special consideration?

A: Although we appreciate your service in the military, all current and past members of any military service will proceed through the Constable Selection System like any other candidate.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/uni_faq.php#q28

END QUOTE


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 May 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> They have reason to, in the US.
> 
> QUOTE
> Military Veterans
> ...



FWIW, the British Army has come to a similar conclusion about the messages they should send to potential recruits:

Army fights troops shortfall with new recruitment ads about camaraderie 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/army-fights-troops-shortfall-new-recruitment-ads-camaraderie/

The Army will launch a revamped £3m recruitment advertising campaign focusing on comradeship among soldiers, after commanders admitted previous attempts were failing to turn around a worsening manning shortfall. 

New television adverts beginning on Saturday will advertise the “unique lasting bonds of friendship” found in the Army and will replace a campaign boasting of the skills soldiers can learn.


----------



## dapaterson (25 May 2018)

There are three core recruiting messages; each resonates to a different degree with different people.


Learn - people join to get transferable skills.

Earn - people join to make money.

Serve - people join for the camaraderie, and sense of service.


Voila.  Mix those three concepts in differing proportions for different audiences, and you've got your recruiting advertising all done.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are three core recruiting messages; each resonates to a different degree with different people.
> 
> 
> Learn - people join to get transferable skills.
> ...



But how do these three dimensions connect to the Venn Girl Paradox dynamic? 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/09/14/the-girl-paradox/#.WwhzVjYm5n0


----------



## Mediman14 (25 May 2018)

As I read through all the comments, there is a lot great ideas. If only someone would take some of these ideas to Ottawa! Within the last day or two, I recently had the opportunity to speak to an Snr Officer who claimed to be at a briefing in Ottawa about CAF Transformation given by one of the many Generals floating around. Apparently someone had opened their minds and determine that the CAF policies are to rigid. To rigid to recruit and retain our members. One example of this was that a Reg Force Mbr could switch to the PRes much easier to help dealing with life issues. Once resolved, the Mbr could be able to switch to the Reg Force again. Another thing was to allow LWOP option more readily available to mbrs. However, one suggestion I have is to support our Mbrs instead of quoting or going by some policy that is outdated! Maybe this could be the job of one of those Generals that float around!


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 May 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Did you miss the part where I said exactly that?
> 
> Some folks seem to think I'm recommending that we enroll people for three years to paint rocks.  Far from it.  I'm arguing that first and foremost, we need to train personnel to be sailors, soldiers and air people.  After that, they can be usefully employed doing real jobs that don't require a lot of specialized training AND be exposed to the more detailed tasks that will require that more specialized training.  The key to this is that folks need to be sent to front line units and deployed sooner, rather than later.  A sailor doesn't need to complete his QL3 WEng Tech course before he joins the scullery party of his first ship, so why not wait until he's spent some time at sea and had a chance to observe and help out in all the Departments on board before he selects a trade?  More experience makes for better choices.
> 
> ...



I must have missed that in the same way you missed my pointing out it's the early years of shit jobs ad nasuem that is driving the youngsters away and not hooking up for another 20 years of the best.  

I'm sorry, but you're far away from the coal face and lower decks as a member of the WR, especially being here in Ottawa.  I believe you're out of touch with the kids.  Hell, both you and l are old men and out of touch because of it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Well I think you have it partially right.  After their VIE anyone should be allowed to remuster if they can qualify for another trade.
> 
> When I was a recruiter 10+ years ago many people up and left because their trade wouldn't let them transfer to something else.   There should be a program that allows people to sign up for any of the grunt jobs (infantry armour, boatswain etc) with the promise that after their VIE and if they can qualify to remuster to another trade (targeted trades could be a consideration).  In fact some trades should go back to being remuster only.  Or sign on for longer in your trade with an educational bonus or re-signing bonus.



Basically take the LOTP and beef it up some;  the problem right now is the OUTCAP numbers that are attached to trade health;  2% of a GREEN trades' TES can OT, 1% for AMBER and 0.5% for RED. 

If the CAF really wanted, they could set more #s aside in trades that Cbt Arms folks *normally* consider for OT.  I don't know what they are, someone must have kept track of that type of info but stuff like AVN, MP, Med Tech, etc....set aside more positions for VOT (U) and make less of them avail to "off the street" recruiting.  Something like that.

Personally, I think everyone joining should start off in a trade that is 'operations focused', whether it be a sailing, soldering or aviation or direct support to those, for several years so they 'get it' once they're on the support side.  We have too many people who understand 'tail' but not 'teeth'.


----------



## ballz (25 May 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Well I think you have it partially right.  After their VIE anyone should be allowed to remuster if they can qualify for another trade.
> 
> When I was a recruiter 10+ years ago many people up and left because their trade wouldn't let them transfer to something else.   There should be a program that allows people to sign up for any of the grunt jobs (infantry armour, boatswain etc) with the promise that after their VIE and if they can qualify to remuster to another trade (targeted trades could be a consideration).  In fact some trades should go back to being remuster only.  Or sign on for longer in your trade with an educational bonus or re-signing bonus.



When I started my CPA designation, the infantry career manager wanted to put me in a hard Logistics position (in Finance) for 3 years so that I could get the required work experience. The Finance branch was and is hurting for people, they would have been happy to take me on for 3 years. 

The infantry would have benefited from this in my opinion, and if more people could do similar things, it would benefit the corps massively. For an Inf O to come back to the infantry corps after having worked 3 years in a position of another trade, they're coming back with far more knowledge than if the had done the typical ERE posting at an RSS position or perhaps in a G3/G5/G7 shop, or perhaps EA / PA to some senior officer, somewhere... doing essentially what they already did before they left the Battalion, and doing exactly what they will be doing when they go back to the Battalion. Bringing back the credential (the designation) in my opinion, is kind of meaningless as its just a credential but for some reason the institution likes those too. Now if you have a host of people doing this, your senior Captains and your Majors in the Units are all bringing back perspectives from having worked in different trades.

This was not doable because our machine is far too rigid, and so the infantry corps lost that opportunity (as did I... that was the preferred route). Only by pure dumb luck was the CAF at large able to retain me (I already had a release in) but it had to be in the Logistics corps... and because of our convoluted OT process, the VOT to Log wasn't even guaranteed despite the fact that the Log corps clearly wanted me to be a Log O and I was leaving the CAF otherwise because there was no way for me to achieve my personal goals. And if not for some serious intervention that honestly defied all normality, it would have been a two-year process to actually get me through the OT gauntlet and trained to OFP.... all for the sake of getting on one silly Powerpoint course. I wasn't staying on for that two-year ride, so luckily it worked out.

For me, the CPA designation is a "must-do" and doing it within the CAF has been more than just a burden. If we're going to lose people because they have personal goals which happen to also benefit the machine as a whole, we're just f**ked from the get go.


----------



## ballz (25 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Basically take the LOTP and beef it up some;  the problem right now is the OUTCAP numbers that are attached to trade health;  2% of a GREEN trades' TES can OT, 1% for AMBER and 0.5% for RED.



Those arbitrary numbers are a huge issue. If someone is in a trade and wants out so they are OT'ing... guess what, they are probably not happy or there is something going on in their trade that isn't allowing them to achieve what they want... if they don't OT, they're probably going to move on to something outside the CAF. The CAF is going to lose them anyway, so just let them OT and perhaps you can focus your recruiting more on the trades that tend to bring people in and chew them up faster.

I think you'd agree based on your other comments that it wouldn't be a bad thing if people were coming in through x, y, z, trades but then staying in because they were able to do a, b, c, trade after a few years. All the better if x, y, z, is one of the "ops focused" trades and a, b, c, are something outside that realm.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are three core recruiting messages; each resonates to a different degree with different people.
> 
> 
> Learn - people join to get transferable skills.
> ...



Where is your focus group and flashy kagillion dollar consultant report? 

Thought not...


----------



## dapaterson (25 May 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Where is your focus group and flashy kagillion dollar consultant report?
> 
> Thought not...



Please.

It's focus groups.  All held in locations where for some reason other entertaining things to do are occurring at the same time.  Spaced out over several years.  With a final report that states that further study is warranted.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Where is your focus group and flashy kagillion dollar consultant report?
> 
> Thought not...



If it's not PowerPoint, it's not consulting


----------



## Kirkhill (26 May 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't know how to define longstanding, but when I enlisted (1960) there was no citizenship requirement for other ranks and officers had to be 'British subjects.' We had some excellent officers and downright superb non-commissioned officers from a variety of countries and backgrounds ... including recent (15 years ago, then) enemies.



In 1973 two things happened.

Ted Heath took the UK into the EC.
Pierre Trudeau created Canadian Citizenship.

Canada and Britain turned their backs on each other and British Subjects lost rights in Canada and Canadians lost rights throughout the Commonwealth and in Britain.

God save Ted and Pierre. [cheers]

Tangent ends.


----------



## jib9022 (26 May 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> When I started my CPA designation,



I was wondering if you were able to continue with CPA program? are you still in military as infantry officer? 

I was in military too but got out and started/finished CPA program and went back again as LogO

CF pays for people to their CPA but do not pay for annual membership after, which is odd


----------



## ballz (26 May 2018)

jib9022 said:
			
		

> I was wondering if you were able to continue with CPA program? are you still in military as infantry officer?



As of 10 days ago I'm a Log O. It's not been easy and hindsight being 20/20, I probably should have just went civie side to complete it. It's unlikely I would have gotten back in afterwards though.



			
				jib9022 said:
			
		

> I was in military too but got out and started/finished CPA program and went back again as LogO



Here's a good example, this does not speak very well for the machine IMO.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 May 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> However, the reality is that we currently train people for these great jobs, but they actually then end up scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations a good part of the time anyway.  In my plan, at least we're up front about it and then dangle a significant carrot at the end.  Right now, we see a lot of folks leaving at the end of their BEs and taking their expensive training with them.  Perhaps, if we expose them to the military lifestyle, before we invest heavily in training, then better decisions can be made and the ones who stay for the later training will be more inclined to make a career of it.
> 
> I realize I speak heresy, but it's not like the current system is working so well that there's no room for different ideas.
> 
> PS:  I believe the Royal Australian Navy has a "gap year" program that does something similar to what I've described.



The problem with this Pusser is you are in effect creating a form of "National Service".  Again, I go back to my point earlier on what do we want from our Armed Forces:  A force based around mobilization where the large body of minimally trained individuals fall in on kit and rapidly prepare for war when the Balloon goes up or, a completely professional force that is rapidly deployable and designed to meet the threat(s) and fight what's put in front of us?

Either way, you still need to cloth, feed, house and pay these people so I don't see how your idea is any better than what we already do?

Continental European Armies have largely followed the anglosphere lead of completely professionalizing their Armed Forces for the simple fact that conscripts aren't particularly great soldiers when up against the professionals and the costs associated with a conscript army just doesn't make sense.  

Even the Russians have gone about professionalizing their Armed Forces because as was proven in Chechnya and Georgia, conscripts just aren't that effective.  The modern Russian Army is basically centred around 6 or 7 Divisions of Guards Armoured and Motor Rifle Brigades, Marines and VDV Airborne Brigades with a large expansion of Spetsnaz and Internal Ministry SOF.  

For how the Canadian Armed Forces is used, it makes way more sense to have a small professional force as we basically spend our entire time participating in Neo-colonial conflicts. 

For the record, I think the Navy and CANSOF are the best structured elements of the CAF.  The Navy had six ship deployed for the month of April (2xfrigates and 4xMCDVs).  About 600 pers out of 13,600 total strength.  They deployed Chicoutimi earlier in the year and they obviously have other ships in workups.  Needless to say, the Navy is actually fairly busy as is the Air Force as they both have numerous standing commitments that keep them continuously occupied.  

I hear the Navy is crying for people all the time?  The Army is vastly overstrength for what it actually does and most people spend the majority of time simply trying to administer themselves and the organizations they work for, in other words, doing keep busy work.  Too many half strength units with no kit and personnel who are slaves to CFTPO.


----------



## Infanteer (26 May 2018)

I always thought these ads covered all the bases:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snYeEMRXt2o


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 May 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I always thought these ads covered all the bases:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snYeEMRXt2o



Doing awesome shit while drinking on Fridays? This would not hit any of the kinder and gentler metrics we are trying to target!


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 May 2018)

Not only that, we don't have any flying bars that cater to the hip crowd and jump companies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 May 2018)

We should take platoons or companies of combat arms soldiers (80/20 reg-res) and deploy them around the world for short missions either doing force protection or training/training with local militaries. 

2-4 month trips.

Our soldiers NCOs and officers need real world experience.


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not only that, we don't have any flying bars that cater to the hip crowd and jump companies.



Clearly, you've never had an ACSO make you coffee in an Aurora.


ACSO: For people who can't spell GPS.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Clearly, you've never had an ACSO make you coffee in an Aurora.
> 
> 
> ACSO: For people who can't spell GPS.



I'm thinking now, sadly, l don't.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 May 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We should take platoons or companies of combat arms soldiers (80/20 reg-res) and deploy them around the world for short missions either doing for protection or training/training with local militaries.
> 
> 2-4 month trips.
> 
> Or soldiers NCOs and officers need real world experience.



So, like, you just kind of described my 8 years in the British Army.

There were definitely pros and cons. But I thought it was mainly 'pro'.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 May 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We should take platoons or companies of combat arms soldiers (80/20 reg-res) and deploy them around the world for short missions either doing force protection or training/training with local militaries.
> 
> 2-4 month trips.
> 
> Our soldiers NCOs and officers need real world experience.



While I get what you are saying, the military must be a servant of government policy and not the other way around. We deploy on such missions that the government deems we need to deploy on to serve the interests of the nation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 May 2018)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> While I get what you are saying, the military must be a servant of government policy and not the other way around. We deploy on such missions that the government deems we need to deploy on to serve the interests of the nation.



I wonder if there is a distinction to be made between serving the interests of the nation and serving the interests of the government? Ie sending soldiers to train kurds will make Kurdish-Canadian voters happy. 

Is Imbedding platoons or companies with allied nations an option, realistically speaking? Say a low intensity one.


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Clearly, you've never had an ACSO make you coffee in an Aurora.
> 
> 
> ACSO: For people who can't spell GPS.



Funny - I've only seen pilots break out their personal Aeropress/espresso maker while onboard.  

I think the catchphrase for ACSO (at least in the LRP/MH world) is more correctly "we don't navigate s***."  But I digress.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 May 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder if there is a distinction to be made between serving the interests of the nation and serving the interests of the government? Ie sending soldiers to train kurds will make Kurdish-Canadian voters happy.
> 
> Is Imbedding platoons or companies with allied nations an option, realistically speaking? Say a low intensity one.



It's always 'low intensity' until an 18 year old private comes home in a body bag, as a result of anything from a GSW to a car crash. Then there'd better be a strong alignment to a really sound national interest being served in some way, or else.


----------



## ballz (27 May 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I always thought these ads covered all the bases:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snYeEMRXt2o



There are definitely some good recruitng ads out there and we were missing the mark for a while. We seem to have gotten better with our recruiting ads in the past few years, even if there can still be some improvement... 

The retention part comes down to follow-up on those ads. We promise a lot in those ads, and you're not in the mix for very long before you realize you've been duped. Tours/deployments etc aside (because those are largely out of our control), we don't do exciting training, we don't do OUTCAN training nearly enough, we don't offer advanced quals to often enough, etc.


----------



## donaldk (27 May 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by HB in his last post.
> 
> I just wish to particularize a few naval point, if I may.
> 
> ...



OGBD - I'd be interested in said paper if you had a copy - current structure of NAVRES is a shit show with most NRD's RSS rendered impotent due to lack of manning and post ins (D Mil C appears to be giving a discrete big FU to NAVRES support billets - they either post in way to junor unqualified pers or are leaving billets unfilled).  Some NRDs have nil Reg F within their lines (e.g. HUN, PVO, CAR) and recently a couple major central region NAVRES training (NRETS) events got shut down over shoddy Admin orders (term OP ORD isn't used anymore to avoid the requisite SECRET classification required).  I never had to dabble with CFTPOs until my current posting and now am tossing them out left right and centre just to have some sort of barely functional 'RSS' at my NRD.


----------



## Lumber (27 May 2018)

donaldk said:
			
		

> OGBD - I'd be interested in said paper if you had a copy - current structure of NAVRES is a crap show with most NRD's RSS rendered impotent due to lack of manning and post ins (D Mil C appears to be giving a discrete big FU to NAVRES support billets - they either post in way to junor unqualified pers or are leaving billets unfilled).  Some NRDs have nil Reg F within their lines (e.g. HUN, PVO, CAR) and recently a couple major central region NAVRES training (NRETS) events got shut down over shoddy Admin orders (term OP ORD isn't used anymore to avoid the requisite SECRET classification required).  I never had to dabble with CFTPOs until my current posting and now am tossing them out left right and centre just to have some sort of barely functional 'RSS' at my NRD.



PVO has a RegF AdminO, but I get what you're saying.


----------



## TCM621 (28 May 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> There are definitely some good recruitng ads out there and we were missing the mark for a while. We seem to have gotten better with our recruiting ads in the past few years, even if there can still be some improvement...
> 
> The retention part comes down to follow-up on those ads. We promise a lot in those ads, and you're not in the mix for very long before you realize you've been duped. Tours/deployments etc aside (because those are largely out of our control), we don't do exciting training, we don't do OUTCAN training nearly enough, we don't offer advanced quals to often enough, etc.



That's the kicker for me. Nothing like being turned down for advanced course because the unit can't spare you. We really under deliver on coursing. I would argue the Canadian Military is "well trained" any more, at least not in the sense we used to be. Just enough, just in time is the CAF training philosophy these days. It used to be more training makes a better soldier/sailor/airman.


----------

