# 'Hard-sell' navy targets lagging military profile



## sjtigers (15 Oct 2009)

I realize from looking at other postings it is hardly news but here is an article from today's Ottawa Citizen:



> Vice Admiral Dean McFadden wants the navy to be more specific and targeted in its recruiting.
> 
> Canada's top sailor says the country's navy has bottomed out in its ongoing problems with recruiting, and he is cautiously optimistic about new initiatives to attract skilled personnel to the maritime force.
> 
> ...


----------



## sjtigers (15 Oct 2009)

here is the link http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Hard%20sell%20navy%20targets%20lagging%20military%20profile/2104706/story.html

I had meant to put this in the Navy News section not sure if it is better there or here sorry.


----------



## kratz (15 Oct 2009)

Thank you for the post sjtigers. There are a few places I could think this could have been posted to. This thread is as good as the others IMO.


----------



## silverbirdtank (16 Oct 2009)

Read this article, my applications in to join the navy so hope that helps the Vice Admiral.


----------



## CallOfDuty (16 Oct 2009)

.....I went to one of those " town hall" meetings that the Vice Admiral had here in Halifax one day.  Seemed like a good guy with good intentions, and a real love for the navy.  He spoke of recruiting and retention, but honestly didn't seem to know exactly what to do about the situation.
    I have to say....from what I've seen and people I've talked to, that there are some issues with the navy, that cannot be fixed.  They want people to join up and become a sailor.  The thing is, that in past socitety it was normal to have a father that would be gone alot of the time and not pariticipate in the normal child raising, house running sort of stuff.  Nowadays, in most homes I'd say its 50-50 with fathers being alot more involved in the home than in the past.  Now take a guy who joins the navy and spends X- amount of time away from home at any given time.  It just doesn't fly as much as it used to.  Wives work more now than they used to, and need a partner there.  
     I've spent many a Friday night at the Fleet club here in Halifax and have heard the stories of guys that have spent most of the last 3 or 4 years of their life at sea, and have broken families to show for it, who wish they could have a " normal" job.
   I know lots of young single guys who LOVE the navy....but I know many more married guys who are just looking to get out of it.  
  I'm not trying to slag the navy...but to me, it just makes sence why most people would be turned off by the idea of it.  Doesn't matter if they offer technical training or a certain skillset.  It still means alot if time away from home...especially for those technical trades("hard sea trades").
  Thats my take on some of the navy's issues.
Cheers


----------



## srhodes (19 Oct 2009)

Hello: 
Interesting subject. Thanks to those who have posted.  I would like to hear more in depth info from people in the know about why this is the case (why the Navy has been and is having “ongoing” difficulty with recruitment and retention)??   Could it just be that the salaries are not as competitive as the Navy thinks they are? Especially when you factor in the serious disruptions to a normal family life (as TangoHotel mentioned), risk, danger, lack of privacy at sea, etc, etc..   Perhaps the Navy need to re-look at what they pay people.  I think most people would agree that superior remuneration + excellent benefits plays a major role with these issues. 

Welcome all feedback from CF members (especially Navy)…


----------



## gcclarke (19 Oct 2009)

srhodes said:
			
		

> Hello:
> Interesting subject. Thanks to those who have posted.  I would like to hear more in depth info from people in the know about why this is the case (why the Navy has been and is having “ongoing” difficulty with recruitment and retention)??   Could it just be that the salaries are not as competitive as the Navy thinks they are? Especially when you factor in the serious disruptions to a normal family life (as TangoHotel mentioned), risk, danger, lack of privacy at sea, etc, etc..   Perhaps the Navy need to re-look at what they pay people.  I think most people would agree that superior remuneration + excellent benefits plays a major role with these issues.
> 
> Welcome all feedback from CF members (especially Navy)…



The Navy would love to be able to re-look at what they pay people. Unfortunately, the Navy doesn't determine the pay rates for our sailors. Pay rates are the same across the entire Canadian Forces, and are determined by Treasury Board. 

At best, we can fight to get the NCMs in distressed Naval Trades as much spec pay as we could justify them being entitled to, however this isn't exactly a perfect fix, as the trades that are in the most trouble already receive spec pay. I suppose a massive increase in sea pay would also help, but still, this is not something that the CF can unilaterally decide to do. 

Recruitment and retention are two different issues. For retention, scaling back the amount of time that we spend at sea is, unfortunately, likely the only feasible thing that can be done on our end. Like TangoHotel said, expecting parents (Of either gender mind you!) to spend time away from their kids is, despite it being a natural part of the job, going to cause some people to want to quit. I'm unsure if our typical sailor spends more time away from home than our air force and army brethren, percentage wise, but I believe the impression that it happens is there, as even people posted to a standard readiness unit can expect to be sailing frequently, albiet not for extended periods (6+ months) at a time.

As for a wish list to aid retention, well I have two things in mind. The first is leave. We start out with 20 days of leave, bumped up to 25 after 5 years, and then after that, bumped up to 30 after 28 years. Quite the gap there. If after 5 years, instead of that, we could perhaps receive one extra day of leave every three or four years, until we hit 30 days total, this would give people a much greater incentive to stick around. 

The other obvious idea would be the institution of some sort of re-signing bonus once people have completed their current TOS. 

Of course, both of these changes would have to be implemented CF-wide. 

As for recruitment, I do believe that is, to a large extent, a visibility issue. There's a war going on. The army is obviously quite busy, and the air force is also obviously helping out. The navy does not seem particularly involved in the war in the land-locked country. And yes, before you start to jump on me, I know that many Naval personnel are involved in Afghanistan, but I'm talking about public perception here.

So this is why things like OP CONNECTION are important. We do, honestly, need to take a hard turn away from doing stuff, towards getting ourselves ready to do stuff. Our focus for at least the first part of the next decade needs to be Force Generation. And once things do start go gear down in the sandbox, I think that will help with our recruitment as well. Once people coming into the recruiting centres aren't convinced before they even get there that they should join the Army to support the war effort, I think that we'll have an easier time steering them towards becoming a sailor. 

As per usual, this is just my not so humble opinion.


----------



## srhodes (20 Oct 2009)

Well, perhaps the Vice Admiral should speak with the Treasury Board people in that case. I think he’ll find the problems he is having will instantly let up once people see bigger numbers on their pay cheques and/or pension cheques in exchange for the strained marriages, divorces in other cases, long periods away from home and Little Johnny, risk, etc. 

I don’t find the arguments that the Navy has a lower profile (visability issue) due to army focused activities (i.e. Afhganistan) very cogent.  Bait meant to detract from addressing the real issues.  I don’t think people in this country are that out to lunch.  We have the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on both sides of us.  Of course we have a Navy!


----------



## X-mo-1979 (20 Oct 2009)

I think you are right about the OP connection.Coming from a army guy I can see why many kids would be going army.Movies,video games,main stream media have made the combat trades appealing.Join up and kill people.when I think of the Airforce again movies, video games, and combat flying in Afghanistan.

However when I think of the navy I think of a ship.The cool things I think of are really small if any.Boarding party seems cool..but then the recruit realizes its a rag tag thing and not a actual trade.Shooting the guns on the ship seem cool,but really how much does that happen?And who actually does it?IIRC its Navy weapons tech?(I dont know for sure)And if so suddenly that job is a not a trade.

How about instead of extra leave and pay why dont you tell us the cool sexy jobs the navy has.And not secondary tasks actual trades that as a recruit coming in could be doing.

Cause from my stand point the only good thing the navy has going for it is lack of rucksacks, and a couple free university courses.


----------



## gcclarke (20 Oct 2009)

Well I was a big fan of the free trips I got to Hawaii and San Diego the last time I was posted to ship. 

As for shooting the gun, depends on which gun. If we're talking the 50 Cal., then it's the Bos'ns. If we're talking the main gun, or any of the missiles, then it's either a MARS Officer or one of the Snr NESOps. Torpedos, MARS Officer, or a Snr SonarOp. 

But again, I guess it depends on what you define as sexy. From your post, the impression that I'm getting is that "sexy" equates to "likely to be able to kill someone". So no, I guess the Navy as a whole hasn't gotten too much of that in recent conflicts. And even when we do, the "someones" that we take out, are typically going to be a whole bunch of people on another ship over the horizon. Is it "sexy" to watch a blip on a screen disappear and know that it's because your anti-ship missiles took out the target? To some people, yes. Others? Maybe not so much. But it's still bloody fun watching that missile let loose. 

I think the real problem is moreso one of scale. The most basic unit of Force in the Army is a soldier and his rifle. In the Navy, it's pretty much the ship as a whole. The tasks we perform are done in order to allow the Captain to do his job. To some people, the aspect of being part of a team working together to a single task is appealing. To some, it may make them feel like a cog in a machine. 

As for the lack of ruck sacks, you also forget the fact that we always bring our beds, our galley, and our bars with us. I'm not going to claim that there are no downsides to life on ship, but overall it's a pretty sweet gig.


----------



## CallOfDuty (20 Oct 2009)

....I'm not so sure money is the issue.  I think the reason they have as many people on ships right now is because it's good money.  A good buddy of mine is a master seaman NESOP.  When he was a LS( not sure what level), he did 6 months in the Gulf.  
   He told me that year with his regular pay, his sea duty pay, his spec pay and his tour $$, that he made almost 90,000 dollars that year.  For a young guy, 23 years old, no wife, kids or responsibilities....thats HUGE.


----------



## MARS (20 Oct 2009)

srhodes said:
			
		

> We have the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on both sides of us.  Of course we have a Navy!



...and an Arctic Ocean to the North.  _That_ is exactly what people mean when they speak of Maritime Blindness.  For every person that considers only two of the three oceans, there is likely someone who doesn't even take things that far.


----------



## NavyShooter (20 Oct 2009)

Well,  

I don't think money is going to fix this.

As of right now, an OS in his 2nd year in the military is making $38,496

Get your killicks up and you're up to over $52,000

As a spec 1 trade, a LS gets just shy of 60K in a year.

The average pay rate outside the CF (from 2005 stats located here:  http://www.worldsalaries.org/canada.shtml ) is $3.156 per month, or $37, 872 per year.

In your 2nd year in the CF, you're able to earn a wage that's in excess of the Canadian average salary.

Money is not the problem.  We earn good money for what we do.

When I go back to sea, I'll be just shy of my 12 years Sea Duty Allowance level, which will add an extra $662 per month to my pay.  Not bad, getting an extra $8 grand for going to sea.  

That said, I took a pay cut to go ashore, and am not complaining in the least about it.

Five years straight on ship (cross-decked from STJ to MON just in time for a SNMG-1 trip!) and duty watches every 2 weeks (or less!) plus continual manning shortages, taskings, secondary duties, etc etc, it wears on ya.

Truly, it's not a job for everyone.  

The hard part is finding the right people.  I'd rather find the right people than have to put up with the wrong ones who are there solely for the money.  

How do we attract those people?  They're out there, but how do we bring them in?

Personally, I think the best recruiters are the average sailors that are currently in the CF.  They have the best hands-on knowledge and experience WRT what our jobs actually entail, and how we do our business.

I think that if there was some sort of "head hunter" bonus paid to regular CF members for every person we brought in the door who successfully completed basic training and basic trades training, you'd some improvement in numbers, and BETTER SELECTION, as the people who'd come in would be more likely to be well suited, as the CF Members would help ween out those who weren't as suitable, and those who came in the door would be better prepared than the normal lines of BS that they string at the recruiting centers.

Personally, I think the recruiting system is broken.  And has been for years.  

How many of us were lied to by a recruiter?  Raise your hands...   I know I was.  

Fix the recruiting system, and in the meantime, employ your existing sailors as headhunters.  I'm sure we all have a couple of friends or cousins or such that we'd be able to see wearing a uniform.

NS


----------



## X-mo-1979 (20 Oct 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Well I was a big fan of the free trips I got to Hawaii and San Diego the last time I was posted to ship.
> 
> As for shooting the gun, depends on which gun. If we're talking the 50 Cal., then it's the Bos'ns. If we're talking the main gun, or any of the missiles, then it's either a MARS Officer or one of the Snr NESOps. Torpedos, MARS Officer, or a Snr SonarOp.
> 
> ...



I fully agree on the scale.And I think it may have to do with the generation as well.I'm willing to say the generation before me were more inclined to go to sea due to family history at sea.Here I sit at my computer and my great grandfathers picture of him building a schooner is on my wall here in the room.Young boys who wanted to make good money and carry on the seafaring life would join the navy.However with the decline in fishing,sea lifestyle the navy may now be feeling the repercussions of that.

Not to mention in the past 10 years the only thing I have seen the navy doing in the media has been humanitarian aid and a few drug busts.Compared to the other branches coverage I can see why the other two are recruiting more.






As for the navy visiting cool port's thats a plus I never really thought of.However in the past two years I have been in 6 countries thanks to the Army myself.


----------



## gcclarke (20 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Not to mention in the past 10 years the only thing I have seen the navy doing in the media has been humanitarian aid and a few drug busts.Compared to the other branches coverage I can see why the other two are recruiting more.



I will agree with you there. Although, the drug busts aren't all that bad. I myself like that I am able to say that I know what 22.5 tonnes of Hashish looks like, having handled it (in 50 lb bales at a time) myself. 

I think WIN's recent anti-piracy mission does help in this regard. The only problem with that is with what to do with the pirates after they're caught. It's weird when there are situations when it'd be fine to blast them away, but you can't actually procecute them. But still, I think it generated a fair bit of good press, definitely more than our typical Gulf tours and fishpats and NATO tours ever do. 

And now that I think about it, there is also a factor of regional representation. There are Army and Air Force bases scattered throughout the country, whereas, other than the stone frigates, the only Naval representation is concentrated in two locations. Everytime I tell someone I'm from Calgary, the question I always get is "Why would a prairie boy join the Navy?!" For some reason no one asks the same thing of a Maritimer in the Army. 

But again, I don't anticipate getting any oceans inland anytime soon, so we'll have to work around this. Again, stuff like OP CONNECTION is good for that. I'm glad to see that we are taking a more pro-active role in our own recruitment, rather than letting CFRG do all the work.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I myself like that I am able to say that I know what 22.5 tonnes of Hashish looks like, having handled it (in 50 lb bales at a time) myself.



Heck, if that's the standard we should be recruiting like mad in British Columbia  ;D

More seriously, part of the challenge has been a focus in recent years on force expansion, which was primarily Army positions.  There is now an increasing awareness of shortfalls in key trades, and increased emphasis on those problem areas.

There's also the challenge that many sea trades are becoming increasingly technical in nature (hence the spec pay).  That makes it more difficult to find quality candidates who will succeed through the technical training.

On the topic of recruiting bounties:  Anecdotally, I know of one former Reserve unit CO who years ago paid soldiers a case of beer if they recruited someone - payable when their recruit completed their QL3.  Today, of course, that would never fly, but putting incentives into the system to encourage everyone to recruit should be a no-brainer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Oct 2009)

I had an enlightening (and fully sober) conversation with an experienced stoker last month about navy retention problems. He was just starting a shore posting and was very happy to get away from the ship. Not because he disliked his job, which I found astounding seeing as he seemed to have spent most of his career below decks in the engine room for days on end, but the leadership. 

He simply hated his officers, and it was his assertion (through the chain smoking) that this dislike of their officers was a primary reason for sailors getting out in droves. He might have been a professional 'officer hater' as far as I know, but was quite emphatic, and seemed to have a special 'thing' for MARS officers. He was also seriously thinking about getting out to do something else, so may have been trying to rationalize this decision in some way.

Anyways, just thought I'd drop that ray of sunshine into the mix.  ;D


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Oct 2009)

I was going to throw that out there too.We had a few army guys spend some time on a ship a while back from my regiment (1999 IIRC).One brought up the story a while back about the meal lineup.Two officers jumped up to the head of the line,which is something we never see in the army.And then turned around and said "if you wanted to eat first you should have gotten a education."

I have no idea if it's true,just what I was told.


----------



## ballz (21 Oct 2009)

Wow I hope that one's not true X-mo...

I think that nowhere in the near future is the Navy going to be able to recruit at the levels Army or Air Force, not with the way the near future seems to be shaping up.

I think the Navy's best chance is if more guys like Gen Hillier step up and keep strengthening the bond between the CF and Canadians. The stronger that bond, and the more patriotic our people, the easier it will be to recruit. Do you really think it's because of fancy commercials or more visits from recruiters to specific places that's causing such a large increase in recruiting? I don't. You can talk all you want, people won't buy what you're selling.

The US has no problems with recruiting (well they say they do, but about .5% of their population is Full-time military, where as we only have about .17%... if you include Reservists they've got about 1% of their population recruited, and we've only got about .24%, so compared to us they're doing OK).

I don't think it's because of their recruiting money. The way they recruit is borderline rediculous and I don't think their population takes the recruiters very seriously. I think our recruiters have a much better image amongst the public and an advantage in that area. What that country does have is way more pride and way more visible patriotism. Their pride and support for their military is huge. It makes people want to be a part of it. They know they will be appreciated for what they do and that they will be recognized for it.

Canadians are much prouder about our military lately and much more supportive. It is becoming a more appealing career and it has little to do with money. I notice a lot of people I went to school with in Fort McMurray, who have no idea what they want to do with their life except that they don't want to live and work in Fort McMurray for a lot of money because they realize how much money isn't worth if you don't love your job and your life, are considering the military and a nice few have signed up. I'm one of them.


----------



## MARS (21 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I was going to throw that out there too.We had a few army guys spend some time on a ship a while back from my regiment (1999 IIRC).One brought up the story a while back about the meal lineup.Two officers jumped up to the head of the line,which is something we never see in the army.And then turned around and said "if you wanted to eat first you should have gotten a education."
> 
> I have no idea if it's true,just what I was told.



If true, that is garbage.  I question its veracity on on point though



> Two officers jumped up to the head of the line



In major warships the officers don't wait in line - they take their meals in the Wardroom.

Which only leaves KINGSTON-Class Ships, which sucks because those would be my peers.  However, there are less than 40 people on board those ships, 5 of which are officers, including the Captain.  Everyone knows everybody else quite well.  You know the names of the wives, husbands, kids etc of everyone on board.  The entire Ships Company is pretty tight - really tight. And I have _never_ seen anything as described that in my time - I have _always_ seen the officers eat last and the CO dead last.  

I suppose it could have been a MARS IV candidate or something....but something like that wouldn't fly for very long - word would spread to all messes before the meal was even over and the Coxswain would be speaking with the XO before Out Pipes, for sure.


----------



## dimsum (21 Oct 2009)

MARS said:
			
		

> If true, that is garbage.  I question its veracity on on point though
> 
> In major warships the officers don't wait in line - they take their meals in the Wardroom.
> 
> ...



The only other case of people eating before other people would be Afternoon Watchmen to Dinner, but that's due to time constraints.  That aside, as MARS said, the story doesn't sound right.


----------



## blacktriangle (21 Oct 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I had an enlightening (and fully sober) conversation with an experienced stoker last month about navy retention problems. He was just starting a shore posting and was very happy to get away from the ship. Not because he disliked his job, which I found astounding seeing as he seemed to have spent most of his career below decks in the engine room for days on end, but the leadership.
> 
> He simply hated his officers, and it was his assertion (through the chain smoking) that this dislike of their officers was a primary reason for sailors getting out in droves. He might have been a professional 'officer hater' as far as I know, but was quite emphatic, and seemed to have a special 'thing' for MARS officers. He was also seriously thinking about getting out to do something else, so may have been trying to rationalize this decision in some way.
> 
> Anyways, just thought I'd drop that ray of sunshine into the mix.  ;D



I had a very similar chat with a senior stoker on a flight a while back. He also had a hate on for MARS officers.

So was it the same guy, or just a trend?  ;D

I still find it hard to believe that any CF officer would cut to the front of a meal line, and pull out a line about education...

Tons of NCMs have degrees or are working towards them...


----------



## Monsoon (21 Oct 2009)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The only other case of people eating before other people would be Afternoon Watchmen to Dinner, but that's due to time constraints.  That aside, as MARS said, the story doesn't sound right.


My thought exactly. I can tell you that my reaction to a couple of day-working, non-element riders chirping about line priority when I'm trying to get to watch wouldn't be pretty (particularly if they were standing in the line at 1130 when afternoon watchmen eat), but it wouldn't occur to me to pull out a line about education because:

a) Lots of officers on the Kingston class don't have degrees; and

b) Lots of NCMs do.

I smell a misunderstanding. X-Mo: Do you remember what these people were sailing in support of? We could probably pin it down to a specific ship and, by extension, even a specific person. Small navy.

All that aside, sure - MARS officers are dicks, but mostly just to each other. To be honest I've always thought the relationship between officers and NCMs in the army was worse, based on my discussions with various army types. My guess is that this is a case of "the grass is always browner".


----------



## gcclarke (21 Oct 2009)

It's not someone trying to pull something like that that is completely unbelievable. I'm sure it's happened at least once before. What would be unbelievable is such elitist behavior being tolerated by his peers and superiors.


----------



## 4Feathers (21 Oct 2009)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> In your 2nd year in the CF, you're able to earn a wage that's in excess of the Canadian average salary.
> 
> Money is not the problem.  We earn good money for what we do.
> 
> ...


Parts of what you say are logical, and your point about 5 years straight on ship is the reality of it. Recruiting is not broke though, they are more successful now than ever in bringing in people, it's keeping them that is the problem. As far as recruiters lying to get pers in, I don't buy that. Finally, the Navy employs specialist recruiting teams across the country to put front line sailors at recruiting events so the public can hear first hand what the job entails. IMHO anyone who wears the uniform is a recruiter, and like everything, there are good and bad ones.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Oct 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> My thought exactly. I can tell you that my reaction to a couple of day-working, non-element riders chirping about line priority when I'm trying to get to watch wouldn't be pretty (particularly if they were standing in the line at 1130 when afternoon watchmen eat), but it wouldn't occur to me to pull out a line about education because:
> 
> a) Lots of officers on the Kingston class don't have degrees; and
> 
> ...



I can remember it being around the time of Kosovo and it was on the east coast (Halifax) for certain.Honestly I don't remember what it was for.Just a exchange I think.

Either way true or untrue the stigma seems to be prevalent.From people in the navy and people outside.Maybe that has issues with retention and recruitment as well.


----------



## MARS (21 Oct 2009)

I would be filled with surprise, disappointment and utter disbelief if disaffection with the Naval Officer Corps – specifically one part of the Naval Operations Branch – was the reason for any measurable retention or recruitment issues.

When I was an OS recruit, I remember being indoctrinated to have a healthy degree of cynicism for officers.  This was in the form of the NCOs barking the old “Don’t call me “Sir”, I work for a living/my parents were married” line.  It obviously did not have any lasting effect on me, and I suspect few others.

The fact that MARS officers are dicks to each other – and to greater and lesser degrees, this is the case – comes from the other old line “MARS officers eat their young”.  It is entirely true.  The reason for that is found in MARCORD 4-15 (Charge Command and Control of HMC Ships).  The relevant portion, dealing with “Charge” reads:

----------------------------------
Charge of the ship is the responsibility vested in the Commanding Officer for proper and safe movements and operation of the ship and her company.  CHARGE may be delegated to the OOW who then exercises command over all persons onboard except the Commanding Officer and Executive Officer in accordance with reference B . 

CHARGE includes responsibility for the following: 

a.  Conning: an officer CONS the ship by giving specific wheel and/or engine orders to alter the course and/or speed of the ship;
----------------------------------

The Officer of the watch is (the often junior) Officer who has responsibility for the safe navigation of the Ship.  This is the officer who is all alone on the bridge at 0200, lets say..in dense fog and busy waters with navigational hazards (read: rocks) less than 1 mile away.  Like all junior officers, he finds himself over tired and somewhat unsure of his skills.  At least, that was how my first night watch started.  I am not describing any sort of unrealistic scenario, just another night in the Strait of Juan de Fuca on the West Coast.  Literally the day prior, I was on under training, my CTO hammering my bag for some training deficiency or another.  24 hrs later – poof – just me, my Watch on Deck….and the entire Ship’s Company sleeping below decks.

The Ship’s Company MUST trust implicitly that whichever officer is on the bridge KNOWS WHAT HE OR SHE IS DOING.  Most don’t work on the bridge and some almost never venture up there.  They don’t see which officers are stronger and which are weaker.  If they have doubts, they don’t sleep – at least not well.  Again, this trust in skills must be implicit and it must never be lost.  They go to sleep KNOWING that they won’t be woken up because I have run the ship aground.  That is a pretty heavy burden – certainly not like keeping people alive in combat, but keeping them alive every day during the most routine and mundane operations.

So, yes, we eat our young.  No one wants some under-skilled bag of hammers to be up there.  Least of all not us, because that person would be one of our peers.  Perhaps this makes us dicks in other areas and interactions and perhaps that is noticed by the Ship’s Company.  I am not excusing that, simply providing a possible explanation for it.

Based on some historic developments, the relationship between the officers and their subordinates “should” be closer and more intimate than the other two elements.  We are the ones with the formal Divisional System.  The Mainguy Report describes it, in part, as such:

http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/rcn_mutinies.html

---------------------------------
The organization of what is known as the Divisional System is provided for in the Regulations. The object of the organization is to ensure that officers, chief petty officers and petty officers are enabled to develop to the fullest extent their powers of command and leadership and to keep in close and constant contact with those under their command. The number of men in a division varies. The outlined objects of the organization are to decentralize command and the responsibility for discipline, ship work and welfare. It is provided that divisional officers shall study their men’s interests sufficiently to be well acquainted with their conditions of living both on board and ashore. It is also provided that whatever possible men work under their own officers, chief petty officers and petty officers. It is the duty also of the divisional officer to encourage and supervise games, sports and other forms of recreation. He is also to keeping close touch with his men and be ready to advise and help them to the best of his ability. He is also charged with responsibility of receiving requests and representations and submitting them to higher authority when required. He is charged with special duties in respect of advancements, with assisting a man who is charged with default, for a higher rating and to recommend men worthy of advancement. He is required to submit names of men in his division who from zeal and ability deserve favourable consideration. He is charged with the payment of particular attention to the training of those inferior to him in rank, to check harshness and irritating language, to correct bad habits and carelessness and generally to act as a guide, philosopher, friend, father-confessor, reformer and superintendent of the men, their welfare, their living space and their working conditions.
-------------------------------------

That is not to say it is a perfect system by any means, but it is a system that by and large works well.

Sorry for the hijack – I just don’t think that having a hate on for MARS officers is anything significant in relation to retention.

_Edited for grammar_


----------



## Monsoon (21 Oct 2009)

Good points, MARS. But c'mon - someone once butted in line in front of someone else. We all know that's the real reason the navy doesn't have enough NETs.  ;D


----------



## CallOfDuty (21 Oct 2009)

Great post MARS.  I don't think any mature person has reason to have a hate on for an officer based on what their job is.  I would like to think that people know everyone has a job to do, and they do it.
  However, from my navy buddies.....their biggest complaint seems about the cheifs and P.O.'s.  I don't know why exactly, but I hear alot of bitching about how the junior guys have to go and clean the cheifs and po's crappers and other things, such as one story  where the senior guys ran out of bread  to go with their suppers, and ordering the junior ranks to give up their bread.
   I don't know how much of this is true, or just overexaggerated...??
  But all of this stuff gets out....and ends up giving the navy a bad name.


----------



## CallOfDuty (21 Oct 2009)

.....I would say the real reason the navy is short on NET's is because of CFNES!! :-X


----------



## Monsoon (21 Oct 2009)

TangoHotel said:
			
		

> However, from my navy buddies.....their biggest complaint seems about the cheifs and P.O.'s.  I don't know why exactly, but I hear alot of bitching about how the junior guys have to go and clean the cheifs and po's crappers and other things, such as one story  where the senior guys ran out of bread  to go with their suppers, and ordering the junior ranks to give up their bread.
> I don't know how much of this is true, or just overexaggerated...??


There's definitely two sides to every story:

- Yes, only JRs do cleaning stations (we don't have the luxury of hiring civie contractors to do it, so someone has to do it and the senior guys have other things on their plate), but there's no such thing as a "Chief's and PO's crapper". Any head onboard can be used by anyone, except the one in the CO's cabin. And anyone who would complain about him not cleaning it himself is just a career crank.

- There's no such thing as "senior guy" bread and "junior guy" bread. The ship is given an allotment, and when it runs low everyone runs out at the same time. If two messes have no bread and one mess has some, guess what? It gets shared out.

The takeaway lesson here is that in the confines of a ship, otherwise reasonable people get seriously irked about apparently inconsequential things. That's a quality of life issue. Their bosses are just a convenient target.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2009)

I've never been Navy, but heard some of the grips some of the Jnr Ranks folks have about being navy when I was posted to a Navy unit.

- watch rotations;
- POs that are lazy and don't care about them;
- the amount of unneccessary fuckery they put up with from some of their NCOs and Officers (at sea and alongside0;
- having to clean the heads of the Chief's and PO's (I equate that to having had to wipe my Tp Ldr's ass in the field...not on IMO.  I'd not be cleaning someone else's shitter for them.  This was one I heard ALOT)
- having to Live-In at places like A Block while on REALLY long courses with no choice in the matter (all the ones I talked to would be on the economy if given the choice); 
- basically the Navy being a poorly-run Adult Day Care Center.  I am not talking about OS and ABs, this was LS and MS types. 

Or how about the guy I know who wanted to OT but his PO just didn't push his paperwork up the CoC for over a year?  Was the guy competent and met all the requirements?  He sure did, as he got his OT.  What kind of "recruiter" to you think he is for the Navy?  Having to deal with my CP02 when I was OTing, he hated the fact that I would print and highlight DAODs, CFAOs, etc and present them to him in our meetings, basically telling me he didn't care what the regulations said, I'd listen to him.  I actually laughed a little in his face.  "Sorry Chief, the Jedi Mind Trick doesn't work with me" I felt like saying.

Now, I know some Navy folks are going to say "I doubt that happened" or whatever.  And...there is part of your problem on the retention side of the house;  people ask sailors why they don't want to be sailors anymore, get answers and then blow them off.  IMO, if you don't want the answers, don't waste time asking the questions.

Again, I am not Navy, never sailed but thats the some of the stuff I have heard from people/saw myself.  

Personally, most of the POs I had dealings with had the Leadership skills of an average Combat Arms Cpl.  I'll finish by saying they were mostly NavComm types that I worked with.  I could see why the Jnr Ranks would be unhappy in that particular trade.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Oct 2009)

As for the point on Stokers hating MARs Officers, well its true but I also like to point out most Stokers have no use for anyone who isn't a Stoker type. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact a lot of them have never ventured into an Ops Room or onto the Bridge during an actual evolution or operation. To them we are just riders and always will be.


----------



## Monsoon (21 Oct 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - having to clean the heads of the Chief's and PO's (I equate that to having had to wipe my Tp Ldr's *** in the field...not on IMO.  I'd not be cleaning someone else's shitter for them.  This was one I heard ALOT)


So who cleans the toilets at Shearwater? Maybe they do it themselves.



> Now, I know some Navy folks are going to say "I doubt that happened" or whatever.


No - what you described sounds like stuff that happens. It sounds like stuff that happens in the navy; it sounds like stuff that happens in the army; it sounds like stuff that happens in the air force. In fact, I willing to bet that a straw poll would show that there are more bad OT stories than good ones out there, but it's far from a specific problem for the navy.

Since we're dealing so liberally in the realm of the anecdotal here, I can say that in my time at an NRD, of the two dozen or so guys from local militia units who came by requesting to OT to NAVRES and who we gave information to and explained that they had to request it through their unit, only two or three requests for OT were passed to us by the army units. Maybe a lot of those guys changed their minds, but I know for a fact (having found out after the fact) that in several cases the units just sat on the requests. Let's not pretend that this is a navy-specific issue.



> Personally, most of the POs I had dealings with had the Leadership skills of an average Combat Arms Cpl.


We can't all be lion tamers. The Cbt Arms consist of four-or-so trades - where's the recruiting crisis in RMS Clerks?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Oct 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Good points, MARS. But c'mon - someone once butted in line in front of someone else. We all know that's the real reason the navy doesn't have enough NETs.  ;D



Dont underestimate rumors!That is but one story in a apparent disgruntled naval NCM story books.As I said earlier I have no clue about the navy,but have heard all the stories.


----------



## CallOfDuty (21 Oct 2009)

Who cleans the crappers in Shearwater??   It's Heather, lol.  Sometimes I help her lift her bucket 'cause it's heavy


----------



## MARS (22 Oct 2009)

Time for some more famous quotes from MARS...

"You are here to serve the Ship, the Ship is not here to serve you".  

Can't remember exactly which CPO2 growled that at me way back when, but it is entirely true.  In addition to being our ideal combat platform and preferred mode of transportation, the Ship is also our home - for extended periods of time.  Despite advancements in technology, the Navy still requires us to "do "stuff".  Nothing much happens without someone doing something.  Cleaning Stations is one of the more important things.  

I have been trying, unsuccessfully, for a while now to find some statistics that would go back to Nelson's time  seeing that it is the 21st of October after all   that would compare deaths caused by hygiene and malnutrition to deaths caused by enemy action.  I suspect strongly that the former outweighs the latter.  So yes, the Ship _must_ be cleaned, regularly.  No one enjoys it, but I think too few really understand it.

A couple of years ago when mumps hit HMCS GLACE BAY her crew was quarantined for a couple of weeks.  Think about the impact on the Fleet Commander's operational capability when that happens.  Now imagine if that happened on a frigate right after leaving port and on her way into theatre.  So yeah, the ship has to be cleaned - often.  And yeah, junior NCMs do that.  MS and Petty Officers supervise it - is that really so different from the rest of the CF?  Heck, that was one of the reasons I really really wanted to move up the ranks - so I could be one of the guys supervising.   Chiefs and officers are supposed to be spending that time administering to the wider needs of their subordinates.

I once had a LS ask me why, unlike the other ship that had just arrived alongside, our officers weren't helping to land and hook up the shore cable, like they were across the jetty.  As I hung up the phone I explained to her that the other ship had just finished a 10 week deployment, and, having likely done cleaning stations and all other post-deployment administration prior to coming alongside, they were probably going to secure for post deployment leave as soon as that cable was across.  Not 10 minutes later "secure" was piped and the entire Ship's Company literally flew off that ship and she went into Sunday Routine. I then explained that I had just been in conversation with her career manager trying to get her loaded on her next career course and would she rather I put that off to help land the cable?  It being 1530, I suppose I could just call her CM another time, but with the course starting in a couple of days and all... Those facts appeared to make sense to her in terms of how I was spending my time, but I guess it is not always immediately so.

This leads into quote #2;

"As long as they are bitching, they still have hope.  You really need to worry when they stop bitching"

Remember, despite the careful actions of senior members of the Ships in question (the CO using his cap to cover a list of demands) and the careful writing of The Mainguy Report, yours is a Navy that had a very real mutiny, and somewhat recently.  That is a big deal.  There is no such thing as a "work stoppage" on a ship at sea.  The hands in ATHABASKAN, CRESCENT and MAGNIFICENT refused to come out of their messes because they felt the system had completely failed and there was no further hope.  In essence, they stopped bitching.  Perhaps that quote is too often misinterpreted and more action should be taken sooner on things.  I don't know for sure.  I do know that the smoking area - likely like any smoking area in the army or air force - is where the rumours start and in a closed environment like a ship at sea, they spread quickly.  I aslo know that a well placed comment, correction or clarification is often enough to turn things around.  Communication is key in both directions and a lack of it is sometimes disastrous. 

On a lighter note, and to turn things around, lets look at "Stand Easy".  Alongside or when sailing in the 4th Degree of Readiness, you had better have a damned good reason for interfering with a sailor's God-given, Charter-enshrined, union enforced "right" to have a smoke and take a break at 1000 and 1415 everyday.   I suppose an enemy aircraft dropping a bomb on us _might_ qualify as a good reason.  Or a sea monster attacking. The common joke among the two senior messes is that the Junior Ranks will down tools 5 minutes before stand-easy so as to make their way outside and be in all respects ready to light up as soon as the pipe is made. And then they won't move an inch until "Out Pipes" is made.  Again, a good-natured and lighthearted bit of humour and an exaggeration, but I was taught as a junior officer that there are few things too important that they can't wait until after Stand Easy.  At the same time my XO said to me: "I don't really care what time you show up for work or when you leave, so long as you get all of your work done...and "stand-easy" and "Hands to Dinner" (lunch)" don't apply to officers."  Fair enough.

Petty Officers who are perceived to not care about their sailors is indeed distressing if it is perceived and/or experienced on a wide scale.  The Chiefs and Petty Officers are known as, and take an immense amount of well-deserved pride in being the "backbone of the Navy".  They come from the ranks.  They are supposed to be that link that explains the reasons for whatever orders come down from Command.  They form an integral part of the Divisional System.  They can relate - directly - to the concerns held by the junior sailors.  That is why they are the "backbone".  _sigh_...I just don't know...I have seen good Chiefs and bad Chiefs, good officers and bad, at all ranks.  Occasionally - very occasionally - I have seen both groups come together in some sort of messed up, perfect storm of a posting plot that results in a particular ship having a bad go of things for a time.  But the adults ashore got wind of it and made the necessary changes.  Those experiences suck and likely stay with people for a long time. I maintain though, that I have yet to see anything approaching a scale that would lead me to believe we have a problem that affects retention in any measurable sense.

Cheers,

MARS

_edited for grammar_


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> So who cleans the toilets at Shearwater? Maybe they do it themselves.


Not sure, but I'd bet it is the cleaners.  However, when I was living-in at Warrior Block, I would have cleaned the Jnr Ranks areas if told to, but not been so happy if I had to go down the hall and do the WOs and Sgt's ones as well, as I didn't use them.  If they were common areas, IMO, that would be different, but I guess the point is that these are areas that only the Cs & Ps use and the Jnr Ranks have to clean them.  And that is what seemed to be the issue.  



> No - what you described sounds like stuff that happens. It sounds like stuff that happens in the navy; it sounds like stuff that happens in the army; it sounds like stuff that happens in the air force. In fact, I willing to bet that a straw poll would show that there are more bad OT stories than good ones out there, but it's far from a specific problem for the navy.



Agreed 100%.  I didn't mention that, this being a Navy specific topic.  



> Since we're dealing so liberally in the realm of the anecdotal here, I can say that in my time at an NRD, of the two dozen or so guys from local militia units who came by requesting to OT to NAVRES and who we gave information to and explained that they had to request it through their unit, only two or three requests for OT were passed to us by the army units. Maybe a lot of those guys changed their minds, but I know for a fact (having found out after the fact) that in several cases the units just sat on the requests. Let's not pretend that this is a navy-specific issue.



Again, I am not saying it is a Navy specific issue, I believe it is a CF one as you are saying.  No one wants their people jumping ship.  ;D 



> We can't all be lion tamers. The Cbt Arms consist of four-or-so trades - where's the recruiting crisis in RMS Clerks?



What I mean is leadership in the general sense, not specific to the Cmbt Amrs or Army.  I still carry the little white card "The Principles of Leadership" [CFP 131(1), para 405]in my wallet I was given when I got my Leaf.  Specifically, the 4th and 6th bulleted points:

- Lead by example
- Know your soldiers and promote their welfare.

If LS Bloggins has a desire to OT, meets the requirements, I don't think the decision on whether he/she has a fair shot at it should be decided at the Buffer level.  The Buffer, in this case, gets to fill out his assessment on his/her sailor, and thats it.  Sitting on the mbr's VOT app is not "promoting welfare" IMO.

Again, this is an issue within all 3 services, but I only mentioned the navy in this topic.  I recall a fairly recent thread on this site where a young Pte (army) wanted to OT, but was told no one can OT out of the Infantry by his Sgt or WO.  We all know that is crap, any Pte not 3s qual'd can *request* a MOC reassignment.  

As I said, I can only comment on the very little I saw and heard, and I did indicate what MOC I was working with primarily.  I am not saying that the navy is FUBAR, just adding my comments "from the bench, not the ice".

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Oct 2009)

> Or a sea monster attacking.


Sea monsters know better as they have stand easy as well.


----------



## Monsoon (22 Oct 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not sure, but I'd bet it is the cleaners.  However, when I was living-in at Warrior Block, I would have cleaned the Jnr Ranks areas if told to, but not been so happy if I had to go down the hall and do the WOs and Sgt's ones as well, as I didn't use them.  If they were common areas, IMO, that would be different, but I guess the point is that these are areas that only the Cs & Ps use and the Jnr Ranks have to clean them.  And that is what seemed to be the issue.


I hear you, but my point is that when living in Warrior Block you have the luxury of dividing your working life and your non-working life. You'll clean what you're told to at work, but you won't clean someone else's "home". On a ship, the home is part of the work.

And as I mentioned before, all heads (except the CO's) are common areas. Some are located nearer to where the C&POs hang out, but they aren't reserved exclusively for their use. The griping on this account is understandable and unavoidable but... I don't like spending four hours drafting an OPORD after standing 12 hours of watch in a day (including the mids). But that's part of my job.



> Agreed 100%.  I didn't mention that, this being a Navy specific topic.


Okay - but this thread is about trying to sort out why the navy in particular is having trouble recruiting/retaining. I have a feeling that the broader CF issues could be debated until we all grow old and feeble.


----------



## Antoine (23 Oct 2009)

I was thinking joining the military to get a break of my civilian field which is based on individualism, competition (even between peers) and a lot of young cannibalism.

I might read this thread in the wrong way, but seems to me that MARS trade is a similar game. However, I am glad that at least people here are honest about it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Oct 2009)

MARS said:
			
		

> The fact that MARS officers are dicks to each other – and to greater and lesser degrees, this is the case – comes from the other old line “MARS officers eat their young”.  It is entirely true.  The reason for that is found in MARCORD 4-15 (Charge Command and Control of HMC Ships).  _Edited for grammar_



Must have something to do with that Thursday toast:

TRADITIONAL WARDROOM EVENING TOASTS 
The following are traditional period routine toasts drunk after dinner in wardrooms: 

Sunday ............... Absent friends. 
Monday ...............Our ships at sea. 
Tuesday .............. Our men. 
Wednesday ..........Ourselves (as no one else is likely to concern themselves with our welfare). 
Thursday ............. A bloody war or a sickly season. 
Friday ..................A willing foe and sea room. 
Saturday ............. Sweethearts and wives (may they never meet). 

Thursday's toast is clearly a reference to promotion, only then to be obtained in dead men's shoes.

http://www.hmsrichmond.org/toast.htm


----------



## gcclarke (23 Oct 2009)

Man, the changing of the "official" toasts was such a mistake. Oh hey guys, I've got an idea! Let's throw one of our oldest traditions out the window for a bunch of lame politically correct bull dung!


----------

