# CRA & "the infantry is for the young" (from: Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat)



## Jed (22 Sep 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> IAnother side note, this is going to p*ss people off but firing away anyways. I know of a few office jockeys who have been riding desk WAY too long and are serving well (I mean WELL past their prime). Enough of this age 60 Compulsory release, it should be back down to 55 and if it were up to me, 50 unless your in a very position (CO or RSM or higher). For myself, age 50 is only 12 years away and I can pretty much tell ya, I love soldiering but I am not hanging on past then. Assuming I stick around until 50 (I highly doubt it being my knees have taken alot of abuse).



Well so much for looking after your loyal troops as they age. I guess you only need the old guys 'in case of war'.  Personally I never thought I would have to worry about life after 50 but life plays funny tricks. You too will be there someday and I bet you take on a whole new perspective.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Sep 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Well so much for looking after your loyal troops as they age. I guess you only need the old guys 'in case of war'.  Personally I never thought I would have to worry about life after 50 but life plays funny tricks. You too will be there someday and I bet you take on a whole new perspective.


You don't see all that many pers staying after 50. Most are ready for retirement and all the adventure it brings. 

Those that stay after 50 are usually at the senior levels, and their experience and skills are usually an asset.


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Sep 2011)

Highly doubt it. When I was 25 and I was like yeah I am going to stay in forever. Now that I am older (38) and I look at my future, I realize I don't want to be in the damn field humping weapons around when I am 50 and sure as hell don't want to be a has been. 

Loyalty. Ok, to what extent do we remain loyal? When do look after the interest of the CF and Canadians first? Loyalty all fine and good, but seeing soldiers serve until 60? No thanks, I disagree. 

We all have a limited window in our lives that we truly provide valuable service to the CF, we need to respect that.

How many young Canadians do we turn away from recruiting centers because Captain Jim or WO Tom (fictional people BTW) with 32 years of service, needs just another 3-4 years service but oh don't post them to a battalion, they could not physically handle it anymore. Sorry I see that kind of patronage going on, a lot of times it smacks of old boys club, I am quite sure their are Canadians who wouldn't be happy about it (As some are turned away at recruiting centers especially) and lets face it, it turns the calling of serving your country into a job.

I have seen this going on in both the regular force and the reserves.

I have 21 years in, unless I am an RSM or higher, believe me I don't plan to serve past 50, if as I said, I am still serving by then.


----------



## Jed (22 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> You don't see all that many pers staying after 50. Most are ready for retirement and all the adventure it brings.
> 
> Those that stay after 50 are usually at the senior levels, and their experience and skills are usually an asset.


I agree Jim. But you and I know a lot of very good troops now in the 50 to 55 range that can still walk the walk. I never did think the CRA 60 was a good idea.


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Sep 2011)

What do mean you never did think that CAR 60 was a good thing?


----------



## Jed (22 Sep 2011)

Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) was changed to 60 from 55 for the new improved pension plan. Just another steady erosion of benefits that we all used to enjoy.


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Sep 2011)

I know what CRA is and what it means. Why do you think it was not a good idea for it too be age 60?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Sep 2011)

CRA 60 vs CRA 55

If there is a position and you are fit medically and physically, you can stay til 60. 

The demographic WRT 60 year olds has changed. I ain't your average 54 year old and any person in the CF at age 59 ain't your average 59 year old.

Just sayin. :2c:


----------



## Jed (22 Sep 2011)

For all the reasons you have stated: The body and attitude gives out for most people from 55 to 60. I have no scientific data to support this, just personal observation. 

When they changed the CRA it was sold as a measure to prevent good soldiers from leaving the military. Of course, no one making the decisions expected we would wind up in a 10 year long shooting war.


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Sep 2011)

The body and the attitude gives out for most people between 55-60? Nah, disagree. Look at my trade Infantry. I know many cases of guys who are in their forties and they are past their prime. 

BTW, this was a MWO who said to me almost twenty years ago that (in our case) the infantry is a young man's game.

Anyways, we are getting side tracked, if we want to discuss the age issue more, lets split and head to another thread. Agreed?


----------



## Pusser (23 Sep 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) was changed to 60 from 55 for the new improved pension plan. Just another steady erosion of benefits that we all used to enjoy.



A little (OK a lot) off topic, but what benefit has been eroded with CRA 60?  In fact, CRA 60 allows folks who joined later (i.e. after age 20) a chance to serve a little longer in order to *improve* their pension.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> BTW, this was a MWO who said to me almost twenty years ago that (in our case) the infantry is a young man's game.



The combat arms are a "young man's game", although some people, who's pain receptors are obviously malfunctioning, can soldier with the youngest troops without a problem.

But what about elsewhere ? Still healthy, i could done my job and do it well at 55-60, why should i be retired ? Keeping me around is not going to prevent new blood from coming in and my accumulate training and experience is both expensive and needed. Its lose-lose for both the CF and myself to retire me early.


----------



## Jed (23 Sep 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> A little (OK a lot) off topic, but what benefit has been eroded with CRA 60?  In fact, CRA 60 allows folks who joined later (i.e. after age 20) a chance to serve a little longer in order to *improve* their pension.



Sorry guys, my last post on this CRA thing. Way off topic and very boring. My attitude is most likely colored by my personal experience. I went into combat arms as a very old guy of 37 (a doctor's mistake, the cutoff was unofficially 35 back in the day) I never would have hit my 20 to get to CRA 55, They increased the CRA to 60 but they also increased the time served to 25. Bottom line is I was boxed in to retire out of my best job ever on my 55th birthday if I wanted a pension that was not buggered up. My pain receptors started to kick in around 53 to 54 and I personally believe in the one man, one kit principle so I didn't want to ride the system to 60 just to fight with the OR and the system for a CRA60 pension.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) was changed to 60 from 55 for the new improved pension plan. Just another steady erosion of benefits that we all used to enjoy.



Explain.


----------



## Jed (23 Sep 2011)

Thanks, Recceguy for taking this stuff over to another thread. Hopefully my last comment answers all the Q's my comments brought forward.

WRT CRA60 and the current pension plan; It functions perfectly well for 99% of people now entering the CF at normal entry ages. There will always be exceptions where it does not work very well just as there was in the old plan. The item that came back to bite me was when they also increased the military time served to 25 yrs from 20 yrs before they started to decrease the annuity payout.

I have no desire to layout my various military and fed govt time in detail to the general public (very boring) to explain the point of view from the average OR when dealing with this complicated issue. 

The day I signed my Reg force release for my 55th birthday I was told there was no way in hell I would be able to continue service in the P Res or even the CIC. If I would have relented and signed the CRA60 I would have had to do the whole 5 years and refight the OR scrimage on my 60th birthday. Meanwhile I would have been a Reg force Cbt arms offr subject to moves across the country and overseas deployments (which I was up for by the way) and endless BFTs.

In my opinion, it is physically pretty tough to be a cbt arms offr in your late 50's. No amount of training will bring back the cartilage in your knees or fix your fallen arches or fix your eyes and hearing. CRA60 is just plain not workable for many, most of people doing a cbt arms job. With the universallity of service requirement, even the sp pers need to DAG green if you are to be deemed a functional part of the CF team.


----------



## dogger1936 (23 Sep 2011)

One of my subordinates is reaching 65 shortly and is looking forward to release. I enjoy the fact that IF I do stay in at 37 I'm done. I dont think a cap should be put into place as I've seen many 50 yr old combat arms soldiers who were fitter than myself.

However when I was going through recruit school all those years ago I remember base cheif coming in to talk to us. He told us about all the guys who joined the infantry with him he was the only one who made a full 20 year career in the trade. I myself am 1 of 2 people left in from my course after 14 or so years. Many have OT'd to easier trades or have proceeded to civilian employment.

I find the old guys who remain are mostly there due to their ex wifes destroying their lifes (dont they all!). They are a great old school soldier to get some great advice from.These guys know the ins and out of everything for the most part.

I do agree that the combat arms is a young mans game but believe there are some diehards out there (when they finally hit 65 they still carry a walking stick as their pace stick on evening walks) who bring a lot of corporate knowledge to the younger WO and SSM's who listen.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Sep 2011)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I do agree that the combat arms is a young mans game but believe there are some diehards out there (when they finally hit 65 they still carry a walking stick as their pace stick on evening walks) who bring a lot of corporate knowledge to the younger WO and SSM's who listen.



It is for young people. 
My days of section attacks on the Lawfield Corridor are over....that I know. 

I am now the "coporate wisdom" dude.....who freely dispenses opinion and advice. Whether you want it or not.  ;D


----------



## dogger1936 (23 Sep 2011)

Good Jim.

I know I have learned a lot by opening my ears to a lot of the "elder" fellows. In between the bitching and whining and the talk about how good it use to be...theres some great stuff in there hahaha.


----------



## Jammer (23 Sep 2011)

I'm 45...still in the field, and can still outrun, and outlast, and outsoldier some of the lads that are half my age...and still love it!


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Sep 2011)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Good Jim.
> 
> I know I have learned a lot by opening my ears to a lot of the "elder" fellows. In between the bitching and whining and the talk about how good it use to be...theres some great stuff in there hahaha.



The "good old days" sometimes weren't all that good. The camaraderie was somewhat better, but not always positive. We had very poor outdated equipment, often in disrepair. We had some "leaders" who were more interested in their careers and stock portfolios than they were in taking care of the troops. 

Leadership training IMO is much better now. You're encouraged to think, not blindly follow and obey the orders given no matter how unlawful they may be.

As an example of the thinking of the 70s, I had read an article on how the Israeli Army had encouraged the troops to drink water....and we'll get you more. I was listening to an officer and WO bitch about how much water the troops were drinking and the old "in my day all we got was blah blah blah and we walked uphill both ways three miles yadda yadda yadda".

I mentioned that the Israelis studied the hydration thing and was promptly told the shut the f**k up.

Not exactly a way to encourage thinking and education.


----------



## Jammer (23 Sep 2011)

There's a great quote from the old war movie "Twelve O'Clock High" that as good leaders we should aspire to.

"I want this post scoured for anyone who shows signs of being able to lead a mule to water."


----------



## ArmyRick (23 Sep 2011)

Great for you, Jammer. Your not in a combat arms trade and I know what CF JSR do. I have watched you guys train in Meaford and Pet, not the same. I do however think Ken Jones (a retired lineman) would disagree with you, his shoulders are blown permanently.

Infantry- Reality checks
---Hard humping cross country, carrying heavy loads
---Running, up and down into prone or kneeling position
---Allowing very little time for recovery (Older dudes NEED more recovery time, end story)
---Lots of time spent doing this in cold weather, not exactly easy on the joints either
---Now add in the other things that pop up burns from casings, twisting ankles on unseen ruts, dislocating shoulders falling down on night time patrols, etc, etc

These are very typical realities of life as an infantry soldier. Those few that are older and still doing it, are the exception not the norm. BTW, PT fitness is one thing and bein g combat field fit is another. 

For those that joined later in life, imagine having done this starting at age 19 or 20. I have watched and had to give the bad news to alot of PAT infantry soldiers who were broken simply doing their DP1 infantry training. A very notable trend was that people over the age of 30 or so, tended to go down much, much easier and needed way more time for recovery. This is not to say that young people did not permanently break, they did, just not as often as the older guys.

For those the say its all about maintaining proper fitness and flexibility, not its not. As was mentioned, cartilage does not grow back. 

I had a good buddy of mine who was armoured, released about 6 years ago and he was very fit. After 23 years of living in tanks, he was done. On some days he could barely get his back to function. I know more than a few sappers who are pretty messed up after 10-15 years of doing there trade. BTW, I personally think that field engineering is physically the toughest trade out there. Artillery have there body breaking moments as well.

Now being in senior positions such as CSM, RSM, stints in ERE can give the body a much needed break. I have no issue with older guys in those positions because its more about them bringing corporate knowledge and wisdom to the table.

Other armies have caps on ages that they recruit and retain soldiers for. I do realize that there a few people in their fifties that truly are still physically still going. Hell my grandfather is 98 and back when he was 70 and still farming, he could have easily done a BFT (He never was a soldier but he worked damn physically hard). Again, my grandfather would be an exception.

So what is my point? I still do not agree with CRA of 60 except for senior position soldiers (CSM, RSM, Generals and Colonls, etc, etc). However I support it because its policy (remember disagreement does not equal disloyalty). 

Another point I am still trying to drive at, there are lots of soldiers, well past their prime, serving in one administrative job after another. They do a token BFT every year and we keep them employed. Then I hear of loyalty for all those years serving, etc, etc.

Again another point. How many young Canadians do we keep turning away from recruiting centers because there is nothing for them?

What is the magic age? Do we cut the majority of people off at 50? 55? 60 (as is now)? There has to be a limit, which there is.


----------



## Aerobicrunner (23 Sep 2011)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> One of my subordinates is reaching 65 shortly and is looking forward to release. I do agree that the combat arms is a young mans game but believe there are some diehards out there (when they finally hit 65 they still carry a walking stick as their pace stick on evening walks) who bring a lot of corporate knowledge to the younger WO and SSM's who listen.


Except for COATS and Rangers, current regulations state that retirement age for Reg and Res is 60.  COATS can stay to age 65 and Rangers can stay as long as necessary until Elders or local custom dictate otherwise.  Hopefully your 65 year old subordinate is in either the COATS or the Rangers.


----------



## dogger1936 (23 Sep 2011)

Yes he is.


----------



## blacktriangle (23 Sep 2011)

I had typed up a longer reply but others have said it well. 

I have seen a huge trend in the last few years of lots of folks in their mid to late thirties joining up. Some end up to be excellent, but many often come with administrative and medical baggage from what I have seen. Others feel that they have too much life experience (read: attitude) to be listening to a "22 year old Cpl" and so on. I don't really have a problem with older people joining up, but they need to be able to pull their weight. If you join up as a Pte, expect to do a Pte's job and so on. No one cares that you have 6 kids, two ex wives and are old and overweight. 

I would suggest that an age cap of perhaps 35 for recruits and a fitness test administered at the recruiting centre (like it used to be?) would help out a bit in eliminating some issues. When I see some 42 year old woman sign up to be a combat engineer, I can't help but be skeptical. We need to be realistic about what we expect to get out of someone who can only serve a few useful years. It would be smarter to invest that money into someone who can potentially stick around for 20-25 years. 

Once a person has joined and demonstrated their ability to serve in their trade, I have no problem with them staying until 55, maybe 60 in extreme cases.  If Jammer, CDN Aviator etc are able to keep doing their jobs into old age, good on them, I say let them stay and serve as role models. Additionally, if someone like ArmyRick wants to get out of the Infantry and OT to something less physical like INT, why not retain him and the experience he will bring to his new trade?


----------



## Jammer (23 Sep 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Great for you, Jammer. Your not in a combat arms trade and I know what CF JSR do. I have watched you guys train in Meaford and Pet, not the same. I do however think Ken Jones (a retired lineman) would disagree with you, his shoulders are blown permanently.
> 
> Infantry- Reality checks
> ---Hard humping cross country, carrying heavy loads
> ...


Rick:

Don't pretend you know about my trade and what it is we do. There's a lot more to it than CFJSR.

I'm not about to measure dicks with you, but If you want a detailed list about who I am beyond what you read in my profile..PM me...I'll be glad to share. Suffice to say my postings in Combat Arms units is somewhat extensive so come down off your cross, it's not the season.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> So what is my point? I still do not agree with CRA of 60 except for senior position soldiers



To make your point, all you have talked about is the Infantry. One MOC out of what, 100 ?


----------



## Jammer (23 Sep 2011)

I thought the world revolved around them...sugar takes away the bitterness.


----------



## ArmyRick (23 Sep 2011)

No, I have spoken about the infantry (to which I have direct experience), I am familiar with armour, engineers and artillery guys (have worked with them on numerous occassions and know lots of those guys as well). BTW, the combat arms make up a large portion of the army.

Have you read my entire post or just pick out certain points YOU don't agree with?

We made 60 the CRA? 60 is just as random number as is 55 or 58 or 49.5. I still don't agree with it. I realize we have universality of service (which their is alot of lip service paid to) however maybe, JUST maybe, the old army was onto something when they had 20 years to pension, the even older 20/40 plan, not recruiting older guys into the combat arms, not having people serve forever and ever.

In more senior staff positions as I said, having older guys serve, which requires the experience, right on.

I am not very much in favor of seeing combat arms 45 year old corporals with 25 years as example (in many cases, these dudes will not return to a battalion or they will release) or having say 50 year old WOs (my rank) serving in combat arms (most guys I know in this situation have been told they will not be sent back to the battalions). 

If 60 CRA is good to go, why age 60? Why not 63? Why not 57? Don't say thats when the body breaks down, talk to any medical doctor and I am sure they will tell you different. I am willing to bet, most Canadians start going down hill much sooner than that.

Now, please tell me that the forces does not need new blood? How many recruits could be taken in if we "strongly encouraged" those with 30+ years service to move on? Again I am not talking about senior leadership positions!


----------



## ArmyRick (23 Sep 2011)

To address another post, when I am done, I am simply leaving the CF. I am proud of being infantry and I have nothing agaisnt other trades (I am hoping they are proud of who they are), Its not bitterness at all, I have always been known (and appreciated) by both my subordinates and superiors for being blunt and calling spades, spades. 

When I am done with the CF, I am leaving. I am not interested in remustering. I have known some that went that route, good for them but its not for me. When I no longer hold any relevance to the army, instead of hanging on, I will leave.


----------



## Jammer (23 Sep 2011)

So not familiar with Signals? I thought as much, anyway, your story keeps changing. You never mentioned the 45 yrs old Cpl...I haven't seen too many of those in 1 or 3 RCR...or any other CA unit i've been to. usually those folks are Loggies or EME types, and they're there becuase they're happy to be on the floor. They have a damn god wealth of knowledge and i wold rather have a 20 yr mech Cpl over a snot nosed five year wunderkind in a rifle platoon. Apples and oranges i know but you should get the sentiment.

CRA? Sure the end comes for all of us sooner or later, but if you can still do the job, and meet all the standards set before you..good on ya!

Combat Arms making up most of the Army???? OMG...get your head out of the sand and stop hugging yourself FFS.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> BTW, the combat arms make up a large portion of the army.



large, yes. Majority, no. My 11 years in the combat arms didn't go to waste.




> having say 50 year old WOs (my rank) serving in combat arms



I don't mind having a 50 year old WO ( my rank too BTW) serving in my trade as we have plenty of "new blood" ( more than we can absorb in fact) and a shortage of qualified people to train and lead them.



> If 60 CRA is good to go, why age 60? Why not 63? Why not 57?



Beats me but thats how it is. 



> Now, please tell me that the forces does not need new blood?



Of course, but the way to do that is hardly by forcing capable individuals out the door because they reach 55.

If you think the combat arms need lower CRA, so be it. The rest of the CF might just be in a different situation.


----------



## ArmyRick (23 Sep 2011)

I am going to finish here. Why 60 is the age? Its a random number. No one seems to know the answer.

We differ on opinions, yeah got it. That's how opinions go.

I would be most interested in adding up all infantry/armour/arty/combat engineers and would love too see what the total is.

You want to meet the old corporals in the infantry? Go the infantry school or the training centers or serving as RFC. There usually not in the battalions for a reason. 

I am not going to re-hash arguments over and over, done making my point.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Why 60 is the age? Its a random number.



55 was also just a number.



> We differ on opinions, yeah got it. That's how opinions go.



Of course we do. I can think beyond "combat arms" while you seem to lack that ability.



> I would be most interested in adding up all infantry/armour/arty/combat engineers and would love too see what the total is.



Go ahead and do the math if you want, i don't care enough. You are trying to make your point using a small sample of the CF population as a reason why, yet you can;t see tha flaw in that.



> You want to meet the old corporals in the infantry? Go the infantry school or the training centers or serving as RFC. There usually not in the battalions for a reason.



I've met several old corporals in the engineers and none of them were at the school. 



> done making my point.



And what was your point again ? That the CF-wide CRA should be lower because it doesn't work for the infantry ?


----------



## Pusser (24 Sep 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I am going to finish here. Why 60 is the age? Its a random number. No one seems to know the answer.



Then you haven't been paying attention.  This was a big topic of discussion several years ago and there were plenty of articles and CANFORGENs on the subject.

Prior to the introduction of the OCDP and ORCDP (roughly coincident with unification), each of the former three services had different policies on CRA.  For the most part, CRA was based on rank and occupation (e.g. lieutenants in the Army had to leave sooner than chaplains of any rank in the RCN).  The release age tables are still in the QR&O (Chapt 15).  Even the unified CF in the early years tended to follow these guidelines.  Over time, largely due to obvious improvements in general health and fitness in the population as a whole, policies changed to the point where CRA universally became 55.  A few years later, for largely the same reasons, 60 was chosen.  The real driving force was the realization that we were forcing fit people out the door who were still fit, but who had joined later and had not completed a full career (i.e. 35 years).  One of the original caveats with CRA 60 was that anyone who had 35 years of service at age 55 would likely not be allowed to stay beyond that unless they had a special skill set (financially, that is pension-wise, there is no real incentive to do so anyway).  Simply put, the increase in CRA was deemed appropriate and I would argue that 60 was chosen simply because it is a logical incremental step above 55.


----------



## mariomike (24 Sep 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Over time, largely due to obvious improvements in general health and fitness in the population as a whole, policies changed to the point where CRA universally became 55.  A few years later, for largely the same reasons, 60 was chosen.



From what I have read, the "fitness levels of Canadian children and youth, as well as those of adults, declined significantly":
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100113/dq100113a-eng.htm


----------



## Pusser (24 Sep 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I have read, the "fitness levels of Canadian children and youth, as well as those of adults, declined significantly":
> http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100113/dq100113a-eng.htm



I agree that they're on a downward trend now, but throughout most of my career I can say that my observations show that my generation was in better shape than the previous ones.


----------



## GnyHwy (24 Sep 2011)

This conversation seems one dimensional.  To base this mostly on physical attributes leaving experience and knowledge out seems quite naive to me.   The last position where you are expected to hump *** around the field will be Jnr WO, maybe Jnr MWO at the most; for Os it would be Jnr Major.  After that you are into planning, whether it be unit/formation ops or institutional.  

The institutional positions are likely where a lot of WO/MWO/Capt/Majs may sit on their current rank for many years, and do a fine job the entire time.  These guys have a lot of knowledge and shouldn't be compared physically, except at least achieving the CF standard.

As for Cpls, some Cpls just don't want a leadership role and yes, for the most part these same persons are in admin roles.  In my experience most do a fine job.  They require very little direction and have a maturity that is extremely rare in Jnr NCOs.

Since Cbt arms persons generally reach high command positions and need their experienced WO/MWO/Capts/Majs to support them, is it truly a young man's game?  In the units absolutely, but there are many positions behind the scenes that most unit soldiers are ignorant of; I know because I was one of the ignorant ones for 18 yrs.  These formation level and institutional postions demand very high levels of experience that usually isn't gathered until the age of 40 and 15-20 years in the units.  Assuming these guys stay support staff for another 15 years, that takes them to 55.  Their experience at that point is invaluable and should be retained for another 5 years.

Since these cases are fairly rare, they should and could be handled on a case by case basis.  If a soldier is not performing, he should not be resigned regardless of age; whether it be 25, 45 or 55.  Removing people in key middle management positions because they turn 55 is not the answer in my mind.

Effective units certainly are the end state, but they cannot operate effectively without the behind the scenes work that is done by these so called overaged military members.


----------

