# Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]



## PPCLI Guy (12 Apr 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No lots of currently serving members on those pages don't like it either.



The same people (or their ilk) who thought that the world would end as a result of a host of things, including: unification, women serving on ships and in the combat arms, homosexuals serving in the military at all etc, and also thought that drinking during the day, strippers in the mess at lunch, driving home drunk, hazing, and abusive leadership were all good things.

Just saying.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Apr 2018)

:tsktsk:  only if it involves paint.... there shall be no fun!


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Apr 2018)

I never expected that once the new/old rank structure with pips, crowns, executive curls and whatever it is the RCAF have, finally entrenched itself that the other standards like haircuts, facial hair, and jewelry would follow.  I served 29+ years in the military, retired 5 years ago and I have worked in a military clinic a few days per week for the last 2 years.  When I walk through the reception area, I see Aviators wearing rotor blades as slip-ons, officers with pips and small crowns, pictures of officers with red patches on their collars and various Division patches on their arms.  CSOR and SOF guys wearing some made up uniform.  I sometimes wonder how anyone delivers and receives salutes...oh wait maybe changes to the saluting rules will be next; maybe it will be replaced by fit bumps and low-fives.  Next forage caps and berets will be replaced by sweatbands and bandanas.  Recruitment and fitness standards added to the above make the CAF look less like a unified force and more like a third-world or southern US militia force.  Uniformity and standards be damned, pride in dress and deportment are over-rated, let's let anyone join, wear what they want, be what they want and stay as long (or short) as they want.  Strong, Secure, Engaged are the last Defence Policies catch words not diverse, insecure and disengaged.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Apr 2018)

All these upcoming changes to the way the CAF appears, doesn't mean not too much if the applicant can't get through the "recruiting" system in a timely manner. Additionally, if the candidate cannot be trained fairly quickly, and has modern eqpt to use, the attracted will fade away and what is the CAF left with? Answer: See above.

https://luckyattitude.co.uk/millennial-characteristics/

The Ultimate List of Millennial Characteristics - 11 Feb 18


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2018)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Note General Otter, a former CO 2RCR and CGS.



December 3, 1843 – May 6, 1929 ( pic attached )

The book "One Thousand Beards: A Cultural History of Facial Hair" by Allan Peterkin, attributes the decline in popularity of beards and sideburns at the end of the 19th century to "the advent of the safety razor" which enabled men to shave more frequently, without the higher level of skill generally needed for traditional razors.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I understand operational efficiencies are important. Opinions on personal appearance may vary among current and former members.
> 
> But, what importance - if any - is the personal appearance of CAF members to the public?
> 
> ...



Just to backup MMs post a few days ago...

CBC Article Link


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2018)

OK, so I may be an old dinosaur well on my way to fossilization, but has anyone actually considered the effects of all this in wearing IPE? I know several people who had to shave off beards simply to do their IBTS gas hut training, and I have also heard multiple stories of paramedics dealing with difficult issues with people with piercings.

Being done up on MOPP 4 is pretty much going to be a thing into the future (Syria is a foretaste of operating in a chemical and chemically contaminated environment) and the proliferation of nuclear and hypersonic weapons is likely to have similar effects for everyone in or near an operational environment. And of course once things go "hot", even being at home in Petawawa or Esquimault is not likely to keep you out of the conflict zone, everyone from enemy SoF to radicalized "Lone Wolves" will be coming for you....

So change dress regulations or whatever else, but be very aware of how it affects the _truly_ operational requirements.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2018)

There's always the caveat for 'safety/operational reasons, though, isn't there?

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/ins-265/index-eng.asp

Example:

CHAPTER 2 -  POLICY AND APPEARANCE, SECTION 2 - APPEARANCE

HAIR
4.Hair on the head shall be neatly groomed and conservatively styled. The length, bulk or style of hair shallnot detract from a positive military appearance or preclude the proper wear of military headdress. (Bulk is the distance that the mass of hair extends from the skin, when groomed, as opposed to the length of hair.) In particular, style and colour shall not present a bizarre, exaggerated, or unusual appearance. Unusual colours, such as green, bright red, orange, purple, etc., are not permitted. Hair must be secured or styled back to reveal the face, and any accessories used to secure or control hair styles shall be as unobtrusive as possible. Hair ornaments shall not be worn, except women’s conservative barrettes which blend with the hair colour. Shaving of all of the hair on the head is permitted. *The personal manner of wearing hair within these general style limits, including moustaches, beards and braids, shall be modified to the degree necessary to accommodate operational or occupational equipment, such as gas, oxygen and scuba masks, hard, combat and flying helmets, etc., where a member’s safety or mission is put in jeopardy*.

And, stepping back - there is this para as well.

CHAPTER 1 -COMMAND, CONTROL AND STAFF DUTIES

8.Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction.

Earrings are permitted now for females, but let's say a JTF commander thought there was a reason people should not be permitted to wear earrings ever while on that deployment.  Well, that gets approved and put into the theatre dress instructions.  Or, how on my Wing, regardless of if you're on the flight line or not, your reflective strips on the rain jacket shall be visible.  I bet that wouldn't go over in Pet.

My line of work, women can wear earrings flying, and have long hair - they also have to be able, for safety and mission reasons, be able to wear a few different masks and a flying helmet.  If they can do that with long hair and earrings...I can't see an valid argument for safety/mission reasons against males being able to wear long hair or earrings during flying ops.

* that's not to say whether I agree, or disagree with the possible changes.  My job is to support and enforce, not determine policy.


----------



## Zoomie (14 Apr 2018)

Limiting factor will be the operational one - as mentioned a few times already.  

Can you wear a man bun and a flying helmet?  If the answer is no, you don’t get to have a man bun.  Can you seal your C4 mask against CBRNE?  Pretty much no chance of passing a QFIt test with a beard, which means you don’t deploy, therefore not operational. Same goes with a O2 mask on your flying helmet or quick don mask on an aircraft.   

As a staff weenie (which I currently am), I’ll be able to finally look like all “operator” like the pajama boys - but once I strap an airplane back on, back to being serious about my job.

Didn’t  the RCN recently prohibited going to sea with a beard - only leaving those on shore with the ability to grow facial hair?


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Apr 2018)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Didn’t  the RCN recently prohibited going to sea with a beard - only leaving those on shore with the ability to grow facial hair?



That is correct.  When you're posted to a ship or attending the DC School as a student (staff too), no beards allowed.

We had students come in from a shore billet who had to shave for the one or two days they were there.  Once finished at the school, they could grow it back.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Apr 2018)

A big question for me is the why.

Are we changing dress regs to a gender neutral thingie to accommodate the 100 (more?) trans members of the CAF, or attract more trans members?

Or is it because our recruit pool is so shallow that we think by loosening dress regs we'll attract more people?

In the case of the latter I wonder if people who's deciding factor on serving in uniform is wearing beards 'n' long hair really a great crowd to target.  I know certain cultures have cultural attachments with hair and beards and that's fine but what about just some dude who's big decision hinges on how long we'll let him have his hair for the sake of vanity?

Anyone who instructs will likely tell you there's big (ha) physical fitness issues with recruits/students and people are absolutely addicted to social media and electronics. Will relaxed dress and deportment or grooming or whatever actually be beneficial or bite us in the ass.


Im not against it persey, just wondering the end result.


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Apr 2018)

The future of the CAF - drill, dress and deportment:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5qDkd56Scg


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Or is it because our recruit pool is so shallow that we think by loosening dress regs we'll attract more people?
> 
> In the case of the latter I wonder if people who's deciding factor on serving in uniform is wearing beards 'n' long hair really a great crowd to target.  I know certain cultures have cultural attachments with hair and beards and that's fine but what about just some dude who's big decision hinges on how long we'll let him have his hair for the sake of vanity?



Good question.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Apr 2018)

I'm with Ditch- if your safety gears fits properly and your face piercings (or whatever) aren't a danger to yourself or others- I am past caring about it.

As noted in the various "buttons and bows" threads, we spend too much time and energy on appearance in the CAF.

How about a group of truly lethal, pierced, tattooed and longhaired soldiers/sailors/aviators? If that is the trade off- I can get behind that.


----------



## dimsum (14 Apr 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Anyone who instructs will likely tell you there's big (ha) physical fitness issues with recruits/students and people are absolutely addicted to social media and electronics. Will relaxed dress and deportment or grooming or whatever actually be beneficial or bite us in the ass.



Surely, some other nation that has relaxed (compared to us) dress regs, say, some of the Scandinavian countries or the Dutch, would have had to grapple with the same issues re: PT and electronics.  I'd like to see if it has affected their forces to the same degree.

However, having worked with Americans and others, the most I've heard them say about our current beard policy was "that's cool", not that we're slovenly - our lack of properly fitting uniforms does that already  :facepalm:


----------



## Teager (14 Apr 2018)

Jarnhammer I was thinking the same thing. If they are needing recruits badly I doubt these dr ess regs are going to drive the numbers they need. Why not bring back signing bonuses if there is a real need?


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Apr 2018)

Although everyone is taught the importance during basic training of taking care of their personal appearance and hygiene, maintaining that sense of pride varies with time.  I have worked with members of all ranks who's uniforms stink of cigarette smoke, their breath stinks due to poor dental hygiene habits and their body odour in general is revolting.  I look forward to the future as a veteran looking back to a place and time before the animals took over the zoo.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Apr 2018)

Teager said:
			
		

> Why not bring back signing bonuses if there is a real need?



The navy is sending out letters to recently retired members asking them to consider coming back.  I have read a copy sent to a retired LSHT.  It's been greeted with gales of laughter from what l am being told.  

In knowing what has happened within the past year now, we were shaking our heads and laughing in the office too.  It's cringe worthy reading.

Also heard whispers of targeted signing bonus being considered too, but that is most likely just fantasy.


----------



## Teager (14 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The navy is sending out letters to recently retired members asking them to consider coming back.  I have read a copy sent to a retired LSHT.  It's been greeted with gales of laughter from what l am being told.
> 
> In knowing what has happened within the past year now, we were shaking our heads and laughing in the office too.  It's cringe worthy reading.
> 
> Also heard whispers of targeted signing bonus being considered too, but that is most likely just fantasy.



I was thinking of the bonuses more for new recruits. What the Navy should have done was sit down with the experience d guys said that they have a real value and the Navy still has a need for them what can we do to keep you a bit longer before they release. 

Maybe for new recruits just tell them they can get the latest iPhone or Samsung smartphone every 2 years upgraded as an incentive.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2018)

Teager said:
			
		

> What the Navy should have done was sit down with the experience d guys said that they have a real value and the Navy still has a need for them what can we do to keep you a bit longer before they release.



A "we need you so don't quit" speech, when the folks who get back in from getting a letter are going to get a bank deposit?   ???



> Maybe for new recruits just tell them they can get the latest iPhone or Samsung smartphone every 2 years upgraded as an incentive.



Or, how about an IPC (whether you deserve it or not) and promotions for people who perform and merit?

Ok on relaxing hair and beard regs a little...but we still need people who serve because they want to serve.  New iPhones are pretty expensive, can I take mine as a  spousal RRSP deposit instead??


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Apr 2018)

Teager, the navy is facing a two issues at the same time, yes, recruiting and retention. 

They're having difficulty in attracting new folks into the engineering trades.  My old trade, HT, never had that problem we were always successful in attracting recruits and remusters.  The Stokers, were not being able to bring in more than what was leaving, not even close.
That trend is continuing, even with the new trade.

Add onto that retention.  The release rate for legacy HT remains about 3 times pre amalgamation rates.  What they're losing is the experienced guys and a great deal of the juniors, tomorrow's leaders.  

For those who have moved on in civilian life and are pensioned.  To seriously think they might be attracted to take a huge pay cut and come into a new trade that has the thinnest of bread slices on that shit sandwich is laughable at best.

The number of releases for Chiefs this past week has been staggering.  The bleeding continues.


----------



## Petard (14 Apr 2018)

I recall this subject coming up during a PD session given by Dave Grossman ("On Killing" author), to 2 RCR before they deployed to Afghanistan in 2007.
Near as I can remember, the discussion came up during the Q and A part of his presentation, near the end of the day

Basically the question centered on why does the military fixate on things like hair style. He had an interesting response, that basically turned it around to those asking the question, on why was it important to them that the military appease the vanities of their ego. That set a bit of murmur going, but the general response was that it seemed unnecessary. So he followed it up that, in his view, in certain elite organizations such as SFOR units, the professional bar is so high it doesn't need markers and rituals to establish reliability to regulations and procedures. But to the larger general soldierly there has been a tradition of imposing this ritual, as a demonstration of willingness to follow orders, however mundane they may be. And many of the general soldier tasks are very mundane. He further went to ask those who want to challenge this at where they would draw the line: drill with arms, barrack inspections? If you're unwilling to do something as harmless as getting your hair cut, or performing drill movements, what do you do to demonstrate your willingness, and reliability, to perform the more difficult responsibilities (or even the mundane ones). 

I think he had a valid point, especially when you consider how the public would view this. These things evolved and remained as a means to ensure the public sees the military as having enforced discipline.  That it's not readily accepted by those joining the military does not mean we should necessarily abandon the idea in hopes of improving recruiting. 

Some here have touted the Dutch example, even suggesting they're better because of it. There's no proof of that, and in this RAND paper it is clear their military is facing challenges similar to ours. So no example there that relaxed hair style is helping with recruiting or retention either
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR690.pdf

The Germany military, briefly in the 70's, allowed very relaxed hair regs, mostly because they were dealing with a very large conscript army at the time. But even here they abandoned the idea for a couple of sound operational reasons
www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-german-hair-force-a-failed-experiment-in-military-manes-a-744992.html


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Teager, the navy is facing a two issues at the same time, yes, recruiting and retention.
> 
> They're having difficulty in attracting new folks into the engineering trades.  My old trade, HT, never had that problem we were always successful in attracting recruits and remusters.  The Stokers, were not being able to bring in more than what was leaving, not even close.
> That trend is continuing, even with the new trade.
> ...



HHT that's so sad... 

Scandinavian countries amoungst others have had operators, operating, operationally (yes, I said that) for years with more contemporary "grooming standards"  I am not sure what the hub-ub is about.  

Just FYI our current C4 CBRN mask designed while Pioneers were alive and well.  If it will work for them, or they found a way to make it work, then it will be fine now in my opinion. 

Not to mention the RCN in particular.  Other Navies use similar systems to the Dragger and they are ok with beards, I am not sure why we have to go crazy about things.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am not sure why we have to go crazy about things.



Because we have wayyyyy too many people sitting around in HQs and the like with no 'real' jobs?

Because we are, largely, not involved with any 'real' operations on a large scale?

Because we think we need to 'change' so people outside the military like us more and want to join us?


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Apr 2018)

Petard, l suggest the short hair requirement wasn't "developed", it was a necessity for hygiene and wound management in the trenches of the first world war.

At any rate, looking at many of the Brits in the sandbox, they were sporting fairly thick doos and it didn't seem to slow them down in either effectiveness or professionalism.  I'm not totally convinced your argument holds full weight.


----------



## Underway (14 Apr 2018)

I welcome changes to the regs for beards and hair.  And I don't think of it as a recruiting and retention issue (because dress is a minor thing unless its culturally significant).  Its an equality issue.

Look at hair and beard rules for men.  Why have specific rules for beards and hair for religious reasons (Sikhs and First Nations)?  It makes no sense.  Just make all the hair and beard rules the same for everyone.  It eliminates the creation of an "other" in the CAF.  Exceptions for "different cultural groups" for the perception of political correctness/inclusiveness sake are monstrously irritating for everyone involved.  It singles out those who are different and irritates those who perceive that the "hair growing" group are getting special treatment.  

This of course leads to negative perceptions of the special group and friction.  I have heard it dozens of dozens of times in the CAF, where people bitch about the different dress standards walking the line of racial overtones (and in a few cases well over the line).  Get rid of that stupidness.

There are also plenty of dress regs we barely even follow, tattoos and chains around the neck are two of the most glaring examples.  Hair standards for women are another one (mainly because most don't really know what they are and the male NCO's almost never go after a females for bad hair).

Frankly a bunch of tattooed, heavily bearded, long haired PPCLI (because you know they'll be the first to change to that look, certainly not the RCR or the VanDoo's   ;D) attacking a position would be terrifying.


----------



## Underway (14 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Not to mention the RCN in particular.  Other Navies use similar systems to the Dragger and they are ok with beards, I am not sure why we have to go crazy about things.



Dragger policy is because in the operating manual the Dragger folks "recommend clean shaven" to work better with the system.  The RCN says a recommendation is what we will take to avoid the potential liability should someone have a smoke inhalation issue and we didn't follow all the recommendations from the manufacturer.  The folks who made that policy know full well a beard will work with the Dragger.


----------



## NavalMoose (14 Apr 2018)

"There are also plenty of dress regs we barely even follow, tattoos and chains around the neck are two of the most glaring examples.  Hair standards for women are another one (mainly because most don't really know what they are and the male NCO's almost never go after a females for bad hair)."

Not to mention rings, or is that ok for Generals?


----------



## Petard (14 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Petard, l suggest the short hair requirement wasn't "developed", it was a necessity for hygiene and wound management in the trenches of the first world war.
> 
> At any rate, looking at many of the Brits in the sandbox, they were sporting fairly thick doos and it didn't seem to slow them down in either effectiveness or professionalism.  I'm not totally convinced your argument holds full weight.



There was a time when recruits, to the British military, were actually expected to have long hair, even getting extensions if required. This is from an old BBC documentary, but the purpose is described clearly at about the 11 minute mark
https://youtu.be/hLVG-EA-N5Y


I still think Grossman's challenge was a good discussion point: besides hair styles, what else should be abandoned?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Apr 2018)

Petard said:
			
		

> There was a time when recruits, to the British military, were actually expected to have long hair, even getting extensions if required. This is from an old BBC documentary, but the purpose is described clearly at about the 11 minute mark
> https://youtu.be/hLVG-EA-N5Y
> 
> 
> I still think Grossman's challenge was a good discussion point: besides hair styles, what else should be abandoned?



I like Underway's point that this will do away with all of the incesant cultural and religious exemptions that have sprung up around dress regs.

Petard's point is also a good one: why do we do certain things in the military a certain way? Are they for good reasons? Are there other, better ways? 

We should always be challenging ourselves as a institution to do better. On other hand, if a certain thing has worked well for a couple of Millenia (I am thinking foot and arms drill), we should be careful about about just chucking that away. With relaxed grooming standards, we may in fact need even more basic team building exercises in our training.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Apr 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Dragger policy is because in the operating manual the Dragger folks "recommend clean shaven" to work better with the system.  The RCN says a recommendation is what we will take to avoid the potential liability should someone have a smoke inhalation issue and we didn't follow all the recommendations from the manufacturer.  The folks who made that policy know full well a beard will work with the Dragger.



We did some of our own testing with and without beards on the Dragger.  Folks with beards tended to leak by air on the face seal by when actually doing anything, and their bottles only lasted about 10 minutes. Not really much use for anything.

Ironically the terrible baggy tailoring made the NCD jacket a much more effective protective system against fire; the ugly blind date bags and folds everywhere create natural air pockets that are great insulators, which makes more of a difference then the nomex.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Apr 2018)

Petard said:
			
		

> There was a time when recruits, to the British military, were actually expected to have long hair, even getting extensions if required. This is from an old BBC documentary, but the purpose is described clearly at about the 11 minute mark
> https://youtu.be/hLVG-EA-N5Y
> 
> 
> I still think Grossman's challenge was a good discussion point: besides hair styles, what else should be abandoned?



Thanks for posting that link.  I haven't watched that series for a long time, it's excellent and now l have my evening set thanks to you.   :cheers:

I have now caught up to minute 11 and have viewed your point.  Certainty shear them like sheep for the basic training period, trades training perhaps to a lesser degree.   But once they've finished all the moulding required, is it really necessary?  

Just like when you're in cells.   The initial stripping of all privilege is backed off, little by little as the detainee "earns" more leeway.  I think much the same could be done with hair requirements etc too if there remained a steadfast need to shear upon entering the forces.  Every stick needs to have some carrot to balance things out.


----------



## quadrapiper (15 Apr 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> We did some of our own testing with and without beards on the Dragger.  Folks with beards tended to leak by air on the face seal by when actually doing anything, and their bottles only lasted about 10 minutes. Not really much use for anything.


Were the beardless folks properly clean-shaven, or stubbly? Have heard comments from boatswains and others suggesting stubble's even worse than a grow-in beard.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Apr 2018)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Have heard comments from boatswains and others suggesting stubble's even worse than a grow-in beard.



I've heard a few women say the same thing.  I didn't realize they were discussing respirators.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Apr 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've heard a few women say the same thing.  I didn't realize they were discussing respirators.



Coffee on the keyboard, again...


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Apr 2018)

Not to be doom and gloom but the more our military emulates a college/university environment the more I think we're going to suffer if shit hits the fan and we want to send our forces out the door to live in a shit hole and have people try to murder them.

I'm really not expecting the world to end because of changes to the dress regs. In all honestly I'm glad in so far as the current stuff is right out of the 50s and 60s.  30 seconds after the new dress regs are announced we'll have people pushing the new limits to see what they can get away with. Typical shit.

I still think about our recruiting ethos and the direction this may be indicative of where we are heading. Again, if attracting more Canadians to the military is one of the reasons for this then we really need to look at revamping our shitty recruit system first and foremost.

Great we might get a dude to join because he can keep his goatee and look sick in selfies but what about the half dozen smart and fit potential members that lost interest because we took so long to process their application. Or we didn't have room for them on a serial but 12 members who did make it are now getting paid to get in shape in warrior platoon.


I know that's a lot to extrapolate from long hair ;D   Maybe my reservations has more to do with the feminist military garbage, guess I'll see.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Thanks for posting that link.  I haven't watched that series for a long time, it's excellent and now l have my evening set thanks to you.   :cheers:
> 
> I have now caught up to minute 11 and have viewed your point.  Certainty shear them like sheep for the basic training period, trades training perhaps to a lesser degree.   But once they've finished all the moulding required, is it really necessary?
> 
> Just like when you're in cells.   The initial stripping of all privilege is backed off, little by little as the detainee "earns" more leeway.  I think much the same could be done with hair requirements etc too if there remained a steadfast need to shear upon entering the forces.  Every stick needs to have some carrot to balance things out.



In the British Army, after this initial 'sheep shearing' period in basic training, hair styles tended to revert to what was relatively normal for most civilian environments. No one wanted to look like a convict in the pub when off duty. 

The reason for longer hair in Northern Ireland, or on other operations/ longer term deployments, was more about lack of access to a proper barber than anything else IMHO. Weeks on operations with longer hair was a real pain. 

However, amusing results were achieved when self-appointed 'platoon barbers' went to work, on occasion, which was worth watching.  ;D


----------



## tabernac (15 Apr 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No lots of currently serving members on those pages don't like it either.



Which page? I wish to engage those *dinosaurs* in verbal combat. Their stagnant views need to rooted out like weeds.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The number of releases for Chiefs this past week has been staggering.  The bleeding continues.



The navy will continue to bleed until it has noticeably changed for the better. A "...bloody war or a sickly season..." would do much to remove the old guard with their antiquated mentality.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2018)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> The navy will continue to bleed until it has noticeably changed for the better. A "...bloody war or a sickly season..." would do much to remove the old guard with their antiquated mentality.



Well, actually the guys l was speaking of are not the antiquated dinosaur types you're thinking of.  Their leaving will be a loss of corporate knowledge and leadership that's not easily replaced.  I wouldn't be mourning the loss of dinosaurs.


----------



## FSTO (15 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, actually the guys l was speaking of are not the antiquated dinosaur types you're thinking of.  Their leaving will be a loss of corporate knowledge and leadership that's not easily replaced.  I wouldn't be mourning the loss of dinosaurs.


Oh the confidence of the young and .........


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Oh the confidence of the young and .........



I'll play. 

Is your ellipsis followed by:

Open-minded?
Forward thinking?
Fed up with the dinocracy?
Right on all counts?


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Oh the confidence of the young and .........



I am anything but young.  As a matter of fact I'm older than some of these men.  But I do know the quality of them and we're going to be poorer because of it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am anything but young.  As a matter of fact I'm older than some of these men.  But I do know the quality of them and we're going to be poorer because of it.



I'm seeing it too.  early to mid 20 years olds, newly promoted Cpls and MCpls, in an aircrew trade making spec pay, aircrew allowance and decent TD trips and they're saying "no thanks!" to their next TOS.

It's not because they can't grow long hair or wear earrings, it's because they will go do other things where they feel their employer gives more of a crap about them and they aren't part of an adult daycare system.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm seeing it too.  early to mid 20 years olds, newly promoted Cpls and MCpls, in an aircrew trade making spec pay, aircrew allowance and decent TD trips and they're saying "no thanks!" to their next TOS.
> 
> It's not because they can't grow long hair or wear earrings, it's because they will go do other things where they feel their employer gives more of a crap about them and they aren't part of an adult daycare system.



My platoon recently had 3 privates not resign their contracts after their initial TOS. These guys were incredible. Smart, fit, motivated, kind of guys you'd fight to have in your section going over seas. Could have seen all 3 going on PLQ sooner rather than later.

They quit because they're tired of not deploying and also doing 2 or 3 times the amount of the work in the platoon because while they're motivated, there are also sick-chit slugs who aren't and they have to pick up their slack.

Has nothing to do with stupid dress regs or haircuts. Everything with being treated like a training aid and coexisting with adult children whom the CoC can't get rid of.


----------



## FSTO (15 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am anything but young.  As a matter of fact I'm older than some of these men.  But I do know the quality of them and we're going to be poorer because of it.


My comment was directed towards cheeky_monkey who had a negative comment towards dinosaurs. But I liked JJT response so I used it. Should have used the multi-quote button. 

Woops!


----------



## FSTO (15 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I'll play.
> 
> Is your ellipsis followed by:
> 
> ...



We also need people who have the wisdom to realize that not all new ideas are great ideas.

Anyway, the institution needs to figure out WTF is the reasoning people are leaving. All these feel good statements from the CoC about our people, mission, blah blah certainly doesn't seem to be convincing motivated people to stay.


----------



## Underway (15 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> We also need people who have the wisdom to realize that not all new ideas are great ideas.



Then get rid of the tyranny of the "Leading Change" bubble.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> We also need people who have the wisdom to realize that not all new ideas are great ideas.
> 
> Anyway, the institution needs to figure out WTF is the reasoning people are leaving. All these feel good statements from the CoC about our people, mission, blah blah certainly doesn't seem to be convincing motivated people to stay.



You have read my comments in other threads moaning about the Mar Tech train wreck.

This decision has had a gigantic negative effect upon the morale of all three legacy marine engineering trades.  The younger sailors who are punching out and not re-signing TOS can be largely attributed to this and other changes that have been foisted upon us.  

For old bastards like myself, this also has had a knock on effect too.  Add to it the openings in industry that might be had by experienced personnel and you have the makings of a perfect storm.

At first, l do believe the adults were not too worried by it all, now however, the see we're missing a leg and they're desparate to apply quick clot and a tourniqet.  Thus the letters begging guys to come back and one on one interviews with guys who have put their release in to see what's going on.

I fear the damage has been done and all's that's stopping the intermediate guys from joining in the exodus is they have too much time invested and not enough time for a pension.  

Even then, l was talking with a fellow P2 in the office from one of the other two legacy trades.  He has about 12 years service and has had enough, he is planning his exit and will be gone sometime this year, l expect.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> We also need people who have the wisdom to realize that not all new ideas are great ideas.
> 
> Anyway, the institution needs to figure out WTF is the reasoning people are leaving. All these feel good statements from the CoC about our people, mission, blah blah certainly doesn't seem to be convincing motivated people to stay.



All true.  By most peoples standards (and if you cut me down and counted the rings it would confirm) that I look like a dinosaur.  I have also been saying for some time, to some very senior people, that:

We cannot have a 21st century military with our 1950s Human Resources system
If youth today plan on having 7 different careers in their life, let's figure out how to make 4 of them on the military
Releases should have a 365 day no penalty get back in clause, back into the same job in the same location
The membrane between full and part time service need to be permeable
We need a formal system of sabbaticals, without career penalties
That we need to enter into contracts with our people on a routine basis, where THEY get to make demands too - and then fire the CofC if they abrogate.  This cannot be a Career Manager function
Speaking of which, we have rank amateurs playing at HR - we call them Career Managers.  Their powers need to be severely curtailed, or their own professional training and career path needs to be changed dramatically
We let people be geo-static......at 85% of their pay rate
We don't insist that every job in the military be an entry level job.  If we need middle management HR people, we hire them on a limited contract as Majors (as an example).

I could go on....


----------



## dimsum (15 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> All true.  By most peoples standards (and if you cut me down and counted the rings it would confirm) that I look like a dinosaur.  I have also been saying for some time, to some very senior people, that:
> 
> We cannot have a 21st century military with our 1950s Human Resources system
> If youth today plan on having 7 different careers in their life, let's figure out how to make 4 of them on the military
> ...



The Sabbaticals alone would help tons - some people will get out and love it, while some realize the grass isn't always greener.  All of the other things are amazing too...if they get implemented.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2018)

I regularly seem to be at odds with what you propose, PPCLI.  But not today.  I find you have made some outstanding suggestions and perhaps were they be implemented it would have a beneficial result in all regards.

If it is true that the Adults do indeed creep here for intel purposes, they will give your thoughts full consideration.  BZ.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> My platoon recently had 3 privates not resign their contracts after their initial TOS. These guys were incredible. Smart, fit, motivated, kind of guys you'd fight to have in your section going over seas. Could have seen all 3 going on PLQ sooner rather than later.
> 
> They quit because they're tired of not deploying and also doing 2 or 3 times the amount of the work in the platoon because while they're motivated, there are also sick-chit slugs who aren't and they have to pick up their slack.
> 
> Has nothing to do with stupid dress regs or haircuts. Everything with being treated like a training aid and coexisting with adult children whom the CoC can't get rid of.



Well then...lets replace those 3 fit keener with people who are willing to join now because they can keep their flowing locks and piercings


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Then get rid of the tyranny of the "Leading EFFECTIVE/USEFUL Change" bubble.



Or change it some


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or change it some



You win the Internet today  :rofl:


----------



## kratz (15 Apr 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Then get rid of the tyranny of the "Leading EFFECTIVE/USEFUL Change" bubble.



[quote author=Eye In The Sky]
Or change it some  
[/quote]

Double Plus MilPoints...change is required so the system does not stagnate, but does NOT encourage change for change's sake / promotion's sake.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> All true.  By most peoples standards (and if you cut me down and counted the rings it would confirm) that I look like a dinosaur.  I have also been saying for some time, to some very senior people, that:
> 
> We cannot have a 21st century military with our 1950s Human Resources system
> If youth today plan on having 7 different careers in their life, let's figure out how to make 4 of them on the military
> ...



I'm pretty much behind everything you've said here, but the part in yellow I have some concerns with.  My initial thought was 'posting avoidance' - Sgt Bloggins wants to stay in Sherwater, gets told he/she is posted to CFEWC...holy crap, there goes PLD, sea duty pay and aircrew allowance!  I'll release then, and after the APS...I'll just go back and now, they've already posted someone to fill that CFEWC job.  I can stay in Shearwater, keep my PLD etc.

One quick thought on why that one I am a little skeptical on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> Double Plus MilPoints...change is required so the system does not stagnate, but does NOT encourage change for change's sake / promotion's sake.



If we inserted the word EFFECTIVE....could we then not give people Unacceptable/Needs Improvement for their _dumb_ ideas?  ;D


----------



## kratz (15 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky,

I like how you think. 

So allowing a  "Releases should have a 365 day no penalty get back in clause, back into the same job in the same location"

How would you write an HR policy note to address and restrict abuse of the real issue you mentioned?
Part of the solution vice objecting to change.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> Eye In The Sky,
> 
> I like how you think.
> 
> ...



I'd amend it...365 day no penalty get back in clause but remove the 'same job, same location' part, that way people aren't guaranteed they 'keep flying in Shearwater and raking in the PLD/SDA/AIRCRA' bucks.  Or whatever made them want to avoid a posting.

However...if the TOS for both Res and Reg are modernized like some of the rumours are suggesting they may be, this wouldn't be a major concern.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Apr 2018)

This is where we have to think outside the box, as in all of these suggestions.  We can no longer afford policies that are geared at the mean of a 100K personnel sized organisation.  We need the policy space to allow us to tailor our HR solutions - this is not about necessarily keeping a gal in for 25 years - it is about ensuring that at least 15 of those years are in the CAF.

There will always be outliers and abusers...who brought us the punitive door to door move bullshit, the IR clampdown etc etc.  So, we either continue to punish the 98%, or we either accept the 2% abusers.....or we have contracts instead of terms of service, and throw the bums out who abuse the system.  As a leader, I would want the policy space to sweeten the deal for the high performers, and the top cover to get rid of the shitbirds, but as long as we have one size fits all restrictive and proscriptive policies, then leaders will continue to be eunuchs in the face of the HR system as it stands right now.

This is not an easy thing - it involves rethinking every aspect of our HR policy....but it needs to be done


----------



## ballz (15 Apr 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> Eye In The Sky,
> 
> I like how you think.
> 
> ...



I suspect there wouldn't be much abuse of this is the other piece to PPCLI Guy's suggestion was implemented... the geostatic / 85% pay idea.

You'd probably have to have a minimum amount of time i.e. you can elect to be geo-static for 85% pay, but it's got to be for a minimum of 5 years.

If you release after being told you're posted geographically, and then get back in after APS... you automatically go on geo-static status for 5 years.



I think HR can improve dramatically in the CAF... but I have to admit, it would be a f**king nightmare trying to draft all this up properly and not have people slipping through the cracks, and our grievance system isn't very good from the few experiences I've had with it (not personally but as an Assisting Officer).... and lord knows we can't have any kind of room for lower-level Command to use their discretion to deal with stuff.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd amend it...365 day no penalty get back in clause but remove the 'same job, same location' part, that way people aren't guaranteed they 'keep flying in Shearwater and raking in the PLD/SDA/AIRCRA' bucks.  Or whatever made them want to avoid a posting.
> 
> However...if the TOS for both Res and Reg are modernized like some of the rumours are suggesting they may be, this wouldn't be a major concern.



Except CMs would immediately use this clause to fill a hard to fill posting.  If you want to fill a hard to fill posting, incentivize it in your contract negotiations - go to Cold Lake for 4 years, and I will guarantee you X - that kind of thing.  There are plenty of reasons not to change our current policies, and one big reason to change them, which we are headed for a human capital cliff.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This is where we have to think outside the box, as in all of these suggestions.  We can no longer afford policies that are geared at the mean of a 100K personnel sized organisation.  We need the policy space to allow us to tailor our HR solutions - this is not about necessarily keeping a gal in for 25 years - it is about ensuring that at least 15 of those years are in the CAF.
> 
> There will always be outliers and abusers...who brought us the punitive door to door move bullshit, the IR clampdown etc etc.  So, we either continue to punish the 98%, or we either accept the 2% abusers.....or we have contracts instead of terms of service, and through the bums out who abuse the system.  As a leader, I would want the policy space to sweeten the deal for the high performers, and the top cover to get rid of the shitbirds, but as long as we have one size fits all restrictive and proscriptive policies, then leaders will continue to be eunuchs in the face of the HR system as it stands right now.
> 
> This is not an easy thing - it involves rethinking every aspect of our HR policy....but it needs to be done



Copy, and the yellow part summarized the choices nicely, doesn't it?  IF we could do the 365 day no penalty AND the contract/TOS stuff is changed the way I hear it may be (full time deployable, full time static [reduced rate of pay]), then it is entirely possible the 2% would have the option to take a pay reduction to be static/full time and not play the system for posting avoidance.  

And to think all this discussion starts because I'm likely going to be able to grow my hair like ABBA this summer  ;D


----------



## armyvern (15 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well then...lets replace those 3 fit keener with people who are willing to join now because they can keep their flowing locks and piercings



Seriously?  Why can't we do both?

As another dinosaur said, overhaul the system and it's 1950s mentality and outlook.  Treat adults as adults.  Retain good people and vest ourselves of those not-so-good people.  Fact is, the retention of not-so-good people is leading to us losing good people.  I see it often - as have yourself and Jarnhammer.

Why are they still around? Because we are so hurting for people that even having them show up two days a week, being on chit the other three, at least helps us get stuff done on those two days.  As little comfort as that may be.

What any upcoming changes to dress regs would do is modernize us so that those actual people out there who would be good for this outfit, who would be good soldiers, sailors and airmen/women, who are not even thinking about joining us now, _may_ just do so.  Maybe they like their long hair and their ear-ring(s).  That doesn't mean they'll suck in the CAF.  Letting them keep, or get those things, also doesn't mean they'll then suck at being productive members of the CAF.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we'll gain enough of them that we will once again regain the capacity to process releases for the bags of hammers we are currently retaining. 

It doesn't have to be one or the other.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Except CMs would immediately use this clause to fill a hard to fill posting.



On the flip side of the coin, CMs are filling them now with the people who can't release/chose to gut it out;  people with 2/3 kids and a mortgage, etc and are close to pension.  



> If you want to fill a hard to fill posting, incentivize it in your contract negotiations - go to Cold Lake for 4 years, and I will guarantee you X - that kind of thing.  There are plenty of reasons not to change our current policies, and one big reason to change them, which we are headed for a human capital cliff.



This I'd like...and would be more willing to take that posting to 'the place I hate the most' if I knew there was a pot of something (good) at the end of that rainbow.  Maybe an OUTCAN, something.  It would have to be 'in writing', for me at least!


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Apr 2018)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Were the beardless folks properly clean-shaven, or stubbly? Have heard comments from boatswains and others suggesting stubble's even worse than a grow-in beard.



(Apologize for the non sequitor, wanted to answer the question)

Note sure what they tested specifically, but had to throw on a Dragger at the tail end of a really long day somewhere around the 24 hour mark after my last shave and had a bit of a challenge getting it to stay sealed.  It was to inspect something after a fire, so I only had the BA on, but until I worked up a bit of a sweat and tightened it a few times it kept leaking by when I started moving around.

Personally I used to have hair past my shoulders and a goatee, which I doubt I would go back to because it was a pain, but it is a legacy thing from back in the day which adds to the overall feel of not being treated like an adult.

Maybe they should stop telling people to get out if they don't like it?  That would be a good start.

Personally I'm looking at the next decade or so until I hit my pension time and trying to figure out if I want to stay in. The tipping point is whether or not I can do meaningful work, as we've tended to kick a lot of that out the door to ISSCs (on the Navy side for engineering).  There are a few ways to do that, but if that doesn't work out, I'll be marking time while getting some various professional certifications in place and applying to civvy side.  I think for a lot of people it's the extreme process driven environment that we are shifting to that is creating mass amounts of paperwork, which people now have to do to get someone else to fix something, rather than fix it themselves.  If I can shift to the private side to do the work I like to support the Navy, while getting a raise and actually having bargaining power with my employer, it's pretty tempting, and run out of rules not to after the 10,000ndth DRMIS form, BN, etc.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2018)

I like everything PPCLI Guy said, above, and I agree with most of it.

I have often said that the military is not one "career," it's not like working for General Motors, or Motorola or a construction firm: you don't "join the firm" and have just one career ~ I had three or four, I like to say:

I joined and served as a soldier; then

   I was a junior NCO; next

      I was a junior officer ~ often a student and sometimes a teacher, too; and, later

         I was a senior officer and I tried to be something of a guide.  

Each was a unique and very different experience; maybe I was just lucky but when I became a (paid) lance Corporal my world did change: I had new responsibilities, a couple of new privileges, too, and new friends and new mentors. Ditto when I became a junior officer ~ and in some respect the "jump" from corporal to lieutenant wasn't all that great ~ I was still a "junior leader," it was just that, in that (my third) "career" I was with a different group of friends and very different prospects. The new responsibilities came later. Being promoted and given command of a unit put me in a whole and vastly different "career," one which, yet again, gave new responsibilities and new friends and mentors.

Maybe my "take" is wrong, but I don't think so; I think is was/is the same for most of us and I believe that we need to reinforce those differences again.

Anyway, just my  :2c: on one of PPCLI Guy's comments.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2018)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Seriously?  Why can't we do both?



I wasn't being 'actually' serious, hence the  



> As another dinosaur said, overhaul the system and it's 1950s mentality and outlook.  Treat adults as adults.  Retain good people and vest ourselves of those not-so-good people.  Fact is, the retention of not-so-good people is leading to us losing good people.  I see it often - as have yourself and Jarnhammer.
> 
> Why are they still around? Because we are so hurting for people that even having them show up two days a week, being on chit the other three, at least helps us get stuff done on those two days.  As little comfort as that may be.



Agree - as an organization we've made it rather difficult to get rid of non-performers and the easiest way to do that, sometimes, is 'posting'.  But that just moves the pile of pooh from one corner of the room to the other, not really a fix (most of the time).



> What any upcoming changes to dress regs would do is modernize us so that those actual people out there who would be good for this outfit, who would be good soldiers, sailors and airmen/women, who are not even thinking about joining us now, _may_ just do so.  Maybe they like their long hair and their ear-ring(s).  That doesn't mean they'll suck in the CAF.  Letting them keep, or get those things, also doesn't mean they'll then suck at being productive members of the CAF.
> 
> Perhaps, just perhaps, we'll gain enough of them that we will once again regain the capacity to process releases for the bags of hammers we are currently retaining.
> 
> It doesn't have to be one or the other.



Like I said...remember when it was decided squareback haircuts on guys was going to be allowed?   ;D  

Out of the people that were subordinates or peers that have left my line of work in the past few years, none of them said it was because of restrictive dress regs, but the HR policy stuff?  Career "management" stuff?  You betcha.  

If the 'relaxed dress regs' improves how many people are recruited into my trade, and the improved HR policy stuff can help keep them there so the MCpl/Cpls are leaving after their VIEs, that would definitely be a step or two towards improvement and I'll take improvement any day of the week.

Still need those flight suits though  rly:


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (15 Apr 2018)

I don't think that we need to radically change things for millennials, even if the TED Talk videos say otherwise. If you want career change then the CAF is already perfect for you. The longest I've done the same job is three years. 

Some of the changes offered by PPCLI Guy and then mentioned by others actually seem punitive. What is the mechanism for the geo-stationary bit? Refuse a posting and thus go on geo-stationary? Some folks belong to ranks or branches that do not move very much. Others get moved all the time. Some favoured children get to do their ERE at their "home station" while others get to go out into the hinterlands. Are "geo-stationary" people a problem that you are trying to solve?

Are people really getting out because bad people are staying? I sense some mean-spiritedness. If the aim is to "clean house" then say so - don't call it modernization or getting into modern HR policies. 

If we are unhappy with HR then look at the senior leadership that are the folks moving the pieces on the board. The career managers just cut the messages most of the time. Its the regimental godfathers that make the deals. I'm also uneasy with contractual leadership. I'm especially uneasy with taking an "HR Expert" off civy street and making them a Major. Have we devalued the profession of arms that much?

I think that we could sort out some simple things like moves before radically changing policies. Look at the recent move initiative and how well that has gone. 

I do like the idea of making getting in and out a little easier. I wonder, though, about needing some provisos about ranks for that. Lets say a CWO or LCol with 31 years gets out, and then decides to get back in eight months later. You've already promoted his replacement. Now what?

Sabbaticals look interesting - an expanded LWOP program could be useful. 

Sorry to be negative.


----------



## kratz (15 Apr 2018)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I don't think that we need to radically change things for millennials, even if the TED Talk videos say otherwise. If you want career change then the CAF is already perfect for you. The longest I've done the same job is three years.
> 
> Some of the changes offered by PPCLI Guy and then mentioned by others actually seem punitive. What is the mechanism for the geo-stationary bit? Refuse a posting and thus go on geo-stationary? Some folks belong to ranks or branches that do not move very much. Others get moved all the time. Some favoured children get to do their ERE at their "home station" while others get to go out into the hinterlands. Are "geo-stationary" people a problem that you are trying to solve?
> 
> ...



Yes. Canadians have.

After 20 years of service, my trade is so disregarded, minimalized, marginalized, overlooked to the point of why having the trade?
Civy side, I can't get a job for any of the various "specialized" jobs that all demand their own certification.
This phenomenon is not a fault of the CAF, but recruits are looking at their future, compared to my time and don't see as many options.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Apr 2018)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Are "geo-stationary" people a problem that you are trying to solve?



Not at all - I'd like to see more of it....but to compensate those that do move, either for the exigencies of the service, or for career progression.

I have not laid out a nose-to-tail HR policy - I have thrown out some ideas that should get us to ask some questions about what a career model looks like, and how do we get the most out of our people, while meeting most of their needs?

As to the "Godfather" comment  could not agree more, but the system has lots of sea anchors attached to it, and senseless policies (that we wrote, and lack the drive to challenge).  They need to own this problem....which means breaking some shibboleths, stampeding some sacred cows, all in order to crush some rice bowls.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (15 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Not at all - I'd like to see more of it....but to compensate those that do move, either for the exigencies of the service, or for career progression.
> 
> I have not laid out a nose-to-tail HR policy - I have thrown out some ideas that should get us to ask some questions about what a career model looks like, and how do we get the most out of our people, while meeting most of their needs?
> 
> As to the "Godfather" comment  could not agree more, but the system has lots of sea anchors attached to it, and senseless policies (that we wrote, and lack the drive to challenge).  They need to own this problem....which means breaking some shibboleths, stampeding some sacred cows, all in order to crush some rice bowls.



Nobody wants to sacrifice their own sacred cows (especially if they are one), so I guess I'll reserve my judgement. Are you willing to sacrifice the godfathers?  Nobody wants their own rice bowl smashed, but some are happy to smash others'. Why do you need to smash anything? I thought we were trying to make things better?

As for rewarding those who do move, is that what you call cutting everyone else's pay by 15%? So those that move are spared but the rest get cut? Thats a heck of a reward. If you are looking to reward those who move then maybe have some positive incentives rather than introduce a punishment? Make the posting allowance a real bonus. Maybe make the move policy better. Otherwise, Cpl X who is chosen to go to Gagetown from Pet to be a Driver at the School is faced with having to take an 85% cut to stay in Pet while Cpl Y avoids the Wheel of Fortune by not being selected - he stays in Pet and keeps his 100%. 

I have little trust in rushed changes to HR for the sake of rushed, dramatic changes. 

I could get excited about positive HR changes. Make service more attractive, not getting out and then back in easier. Most HR changes I have seen, all under the guise of "modernization" have actually been clawbacks of benefits/services.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2018)

I agree. I think that moving should be incentivized. A firm contract with the expectations of both parties clearly laid out, along with enhanced financial benefits would work wonders. 

I also agree that the one year, no penalty release is a good idea. That being said, it should be clear that certain conditions, like posting evasion don't qualify.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Apr 2018)

Whatever we do on the HR side, if we don't figure out this 'Millennial thing', we'll have to extend CRA to 75 

"A 2015 Gallup Poll found that Millennials are the least engaged cohort in the workplace, with only 28.9% saying that they are engaged at work. This, combined with high turnover rates and greater freelance and entrepreneurial opportunities, means that if companies want to retain these valued workers, they will have to double their efforts to meet Millennials where they are."

https://hbr.org/2016/02/motivating-millennials-takes-more-than-flexible-work-policies


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Apr 2018)

One incentive you could give to moving is to bring it back in house again.  When we took care of our own, things were much better for the member.  Brookfield is not so concerned, unless it's the bottom dollar.  Which is understandable.  

Just as our in house dental care is superior to private practice from the standpoint of not worrying about costs in the same way.

I have had moves under in house, Royal Lepage and Brookfield.  Each change was a step down in quality for me and my family.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Just as our in house dental care is superior to private practice from the standpoint of not worrying about costs in the same way.



What?!  You need 2 appointments to get a check up and a cleaning and it can take more than a year to get a cleaning appointment!  My wife can get one next week... 

As far as bringing back the moves in-house, you think our clerks have the time?!


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Apr 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> What?!  You need 2 appointments to get a check up and a cleaning and it can take more than a year to get a cleaning appointment!  My wife can get one next week...
> 
> As far as bringing back the moves in-house, you think our clerks have the time?!



As was explained to me by a dentist some years back.  They don't need to worry about the equipment and materials as does a private practice which allowed them to provide better service.  As l am not of that world, I'll take their word for it as they'd know better than l.

Clerks?  Can't say how busy or not they are.  All l can speak of is from my experience.  I had better moves in house than farmed out.


----------



## dimsum (16 Apr 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> What?!  You need 2 appointments to get a check up and a cleaning and it can take more than a year to get a cleaning appointment!  My wife can get one next week...



Does your base send people out to the civilian dentists for cleanings?  I've had a few done that way when the military one was too busy.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I could go on....


Please do!
I never took your post as a complete gospel, but as an excellent offering to a topic (HR, writ large) that desperately _needs_  discussion. :cheers:


----------



## kratz (16 Apr 2018)

Important enough to have it's own topic. That whole, "thinking outside the box" thing.


----------



## Pusser (16 Apr 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://luckyattitude.co.uk/millennial-characteristics/
> 
> The Ultimate List of Millennial Characteristics - 11 Feb 18



Glad to hear that millennials are conscious, although perhaps they ought to observe them on a Saturday night....

Then again, may be the author (a millennial?) needs to pull out a dictionary and learn the difference between "conscious" and "conscientious."


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Apr 2018)

If he can stay awake long enough to do so...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Apr 2018)

While I agree that the TOS are due (overdue) for reform, we have, IMHO, to keep in mind a few points:

First, whenever the economy is good and employment offer plentiful (some would call it a worker's market), the military is always competing with one arm tied up: military life just isn't as attractive then so both enrolment and retention suffers. Thus, such hard times for filling positions may or may not warrant changes in policy in and of themselves. One has to be careful.

Second, if retention is a problem to be solved through TOS, first the reasons for leaving must be carefully evaluated to make sure we address the ones that matter to different services. For instance, I would suspect that the loss of senior technical personnel by the Navy is not the same as the reason why the Army is losing its mid-level leadership. I suspect a large part in the Navy is over deployment while in the Army it's lack of deployment for which they joined to start with. 

Third, we have to identify  those areas of HR management in the CAF that are imposed on us by Treasury Board policies and which are counter-productive to the objective of the CAF personnel management as opposed to civil servant's, then proceed to explain and support the needed changes to get the said TB to agree to make military exception. Otherwise we will not get anywhere.

BTW, PPCLI Guy: if the Army goes to "geo-stationary" type of employment (I say Army because the Navy already has "home porting", or has that been cancelled?) with most members spending most of their career in single location (one assumes moving mostly within one's own Regiment and brigade/division which is based at a single location), wouldn't that be reverting to the pre-unification regimental system in great part?


----------



## Pusser (16 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Petard, l suggest the short hair requirement wasn't "developed", it was a necessity for hygiene and wound management in the trenches of the first world war.
> 
> At any rate, looking at many of the Brits in the sandbox, they were sporting fairly thick doos and it didn't seem to slow them down in either effectiveness or professionalism.  I'm not totally convinced your argument holds full weight.



Short hair in the navy goes back a lot further than that (sort of).  In the days of wooden ships and iron men, "landsmen" were regularly pressed into service.  Upon being taken on board the ship, their heads were usually shaved (or shorn very closely) to combat lice.  However, it was allowed to grow after that.  Thus, long hair was a sign of long service and experience as a seaman.  From this also developed the fashion of wearing long hair in a tarred pigtail (tar can help prevent lice), which is where the sailor's collar came from.  Much like the cover on the back of a high chair, the sailor's collar was detachable and designed to protect the rest of the uniform from the tar in the pigtail.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Apr 2018)

Belgium is considering to allow recruits sleep at home.

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/belgium-may-have-new-appeal-for-millennials-join-the-army-and-sleep-at-home


----------



## cld617 (16 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This I'd like...and would be more willing to take that posting to 'the place I hate the most' if I knew there was a pot of something (good) at the end of that rainbow.  Maybe an OUTCAN, something.  It would have to be 'in writing', for me at least!



The reality is there are some trades where there simply aren't enough pot-of-gold positions available to rotate those people out, without in turn rotating everyone else in. The amount of techs in Cold Lake dwarfs nearly every other base, and even if half wanted to spend their careers there, you're spending huge amounts to rotate the other half out and fill those spots. We shot ourselves in the foot back when we chose locations, back when the thought of a spouse having a career was laughable and we got away with paying people shekels.


----------



## kratz (16 Apr 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> The reality is there are some trades where there simply aren't enough pot-of-gold positions available to rotate those people out, without in turn rotating everyone else in. The amount of techs in Cold Lake dwarfs nearly every other base, and even if half wanted to spend their careers here, you're spending huge amounts to rotate the other half out and fill those spots. We shot ourselves in the foot back when we chose locations, back when the thought of a spouse having a career was laughable and we got away with paying people shekels.



I agree, the CAF shoots itself in the foot, but the bases we operate have been justified and rationalized. 

If the RCAF made a "home port", at two major locations for most trades, it would help with retention.

Yes, change the CAF TOS system, some current incentives are gold.


----------



## Pusser (16 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> One incentive you could give to moving is to bring it back in house again.  When we took care of our own, things were much better for the member.  Brookfield is not so concerned, unless it's the bottom dollar.  Which is understandable.
> 
> Just as our in house dental care is superior to private practice from the standpoint of not worrying about costs in the same way.
> 
> I have had moves under in house, Royal Lepage and Brookfield.  Each change was a step down in quality for me and my family.



That's not entirely true.  Having both moved and administered moves under both systems, I can honestly say that we saw a net improvement in overall benefit to the member as a result of contracting things out.  What we hear about all the time is all the negative parts of the Brookfield experience.  What we don't tend to hear about is all the things that went right.  Keep in mind that some of what we were doing when we controlled moves in house was actually illegal and so we had to stop doing those things.  This just happened to coincide with the switch to the contractor.  The other problem, and the key driving factor behind going to the IIRP, was consistency.  Some commanders were more generous in approvals than others and it was causing problems.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Apr 2018)

So are you suggesting, Pusser, the shit show that recently came to light with Brookfield is a figment of imagination or a better move experience than in the past?  

I can't speak for anyone else but myself but from my standpoint it was a better feeling in past moves for me than in recent times.


----------



## mariomike (16 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Releases should have a 365 day no penalty get back in clause, back into the same job in the same location



That's an interesting concept ( to me ), because where I worked, employees were only allowed five days to rescind a resignation / release.

After that, there was no coming back.

Would a CAF "boomerang" member ( 365-day release and re-hire ) be subject to a Reference Check?

How frequently could CAF members take advantage of a 365 day no penalty get back in clause?


----------



## tabernac (16 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, actually the guys l was speaking of are not the antiquated dinosaur types you're thinking of.  Their leaving will be a loss of corporate knowledge and leadership that's not easily replaced.  I wouldn't be mourning the loss of dinosaurs.



My apologies, I should have been more clear - their departure (read: bleeding) will continue, just as my contemporaries and peers are seriously considering leaving. I didn't mean to link those departing members to those who still wear leather gaiters and square-rig. Full disclosure: I'm releasing.

If you graph out the numbers of NWOs challenging their Command Boards, you'll see the numbers are declining. Likewise, the there's less interest in ORO (for the non hard-navy: ops room officer, roughly analogous to combined Coy OC/Battle Captain/OpsO/Adj)



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> My comment was directed towards cheeky_monkey who had a negative comment towards dinosaurs. But I liked JJT response so I used it. Should have used the multi-quote button.
> Woops!


Of course I'll comment negatively about dinosaurs - they few are the millstone around the navy's neck. Unfortunately, it appears as if the navy doesn't value people, or more specifically, work/life balance. Sometimes I feel like the navy puts the priority on the institution, not the people who make up the institution. Put in other words: The navy is NOTHING without the people who man the ships that put to sea.

Vern, EITS, ERC, PPCLI Guy: Members of the CAF HR Revitalization steering group?!


----------



## McG (16 Apr 2018)

Somewhere on these boards, I have suggested something similar to elements of this Journey.  Instead of looking at it from a Reg F career flexibility perspective, I was looking more at the RegF/PRes boundary.

Currently, all Reg F positions have an Operational Baseline Type and I would either build on this or create a separate designation to differentiate between positions that can accept a limited liability occupant and positions require an unlimited liability occupant.  All Class B/A positions would become Reg F positions with a limited liability occupant acceptable designation (PRes incumbents would remain until end of current TOS, then be given the option to CT or vacate the position). 

By default, all Reg F pers would be enrolled under unlimited liability TOS (with a skilled entrant enrollment plan offering an optional exception for re-enrollment and component transfer).  Once the initial TOS are complete, members would have the option to select either unlimited liability service or limited liability service (and they would have the flexibility to move between the two streams at any point thereafter).

Limited liability would be much like current PRes Cl B/A with 85% pay, no mandatory cost moves, and no obligation to deploy on international operations unless posted to an LDA or SDA unit (note: normally LDA and SDA positions would be designated unlimited liability required, but exceptions could exist if positions would otherwise be vacant and the member volunteers for the spot).  Unlimited liability would be like RegF with 100% pay, an obligation to move when posted, and an obligation to deploy anywhere when called to do so.  Both limited and unlimited liability members would be managed by the same CMs, attend the same career courses, and be selected for promotion through the same boards.  This means that the limited liability member can be posted, but only within the geographic location such that a move is not incurred.

Much like a PER opt-out, you cannot wait until you know the outcome is unfavourable to subscribe to the exemption.  To avoid an out-of-APS posting, the application for limited liability service need only be submitted before a posting message is cut.  To avoid an APS posting, the application for limited liability service need be submitted before December, with applications received after 01 Dec incurring a 4 month deferment to activation.  By contrast, if a member opts from limited liability to unlimited liability, a posting message could be cut the very next day regardless of timing as APS or out-of-APS.  For exceptional personal circumstances, compassionate status would continue to exist, and would not be governed by the same timelines as opting into limited liability.

Lots more meat to put on this skeleton though, and a lot of scenarios that I have not taken the time to describe (and likely even more that I have not thought of).


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2018)

Something some of us discussed many years *decades* ago was rethinking the term "reserve" so that we might co sider a three or four element force:

1. The *active force* ~ today's regular force except that every single member, without fail, is fit, has passed his/her physical fitness and weapon handling tests and is 100% *green* for immediate deployment, anywhere;

2. The *permanent force* which consists of Group 1 plus all those who want a career and are will ing and able to be posted thither and yon and attend courses and so on ~ some, even quite a few may be *orange* for deployment for any number of most ,likely temporary reasons they will be, _per force_, members of the reserve force;

3. The *reserve force* which consists of members on full time service in many HQs and units, full time and part time, the terms of service might be variable and flexible and an individual's pay rates might vary depending on the number of limitations (s)he needs to stay in ... i.e. no move until my kids finish elementary school, or no move out of Quebec or no move to Quebec, etc; and

4. The *volunteer reserve* which consists of people on part time service in part-time units. It (the RCNVR, CA(VR) and RCAFVR) is, as we used to say, a "students' militia" geared around a university student's academic year with units led and managed by a mix of former and serving full time (*permanent force* and *reserve force*) members.

The *reserve force* is the largest component; the *active force* component is the smallest ~ maybe ten ships, two brigades and four or five RCAF squadrons, all high readiness, all up to strength, all "ready to rumble."

Anyways ... thoughts from the Staff College bar, late on winter night, several decades ago ... 

Neither the problem nor some of the solutions are all that new.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Apr 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Something some of us discussed many years *decades* ago was rethinking the term "reserve" so that we might co sider a three or four element force:
> 
> 1. The *active force* ~ today's regular force except that every single member, without fail, is fit, has passed his/her physical fitness and weapon handling tests and is 100% *green* for immediate deployment, anywhere;
> 
> ...



I think implementing something like that would result in wholesale departures, as lots of people can get geographic stability now while still meeting the requirements of the trade. Rather then penalize people for wanting to not move every few years, I think we should rationalize our relocations and incentivize moves.

That system also does nothing to retain quality people; staying fit, doing your weapons handling test etc are pretty basic, but really has nothing to do with being good at what you do.  There are a lot of reasons that people get out, but generally think it's for all kinds of reasons other than money, so there is no real silver bullet to fix the 'death by a thousand cuts' syndrome everyone is going through before deciding they've had enough.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think implementing something like that would result in wholesale departures, as lots of people can get geographic stability now while still meeting the requirements of the trade. Rather then penalize people for wanting to not move every few years, I think we should rationalize our relocations and incentivize moves.
> 
> That system also does nothing to retain quality people; staying fit, doing your weapons handling test etc are pretty basic, but really has nothing to do with being good at what you do.  There are a lot of reasons that people get out, but generally think it's for all kinds of reasons other than money, so there is no real silver bullet to fix the 'death by a thousand cuts' syndrome everyone is going through before deciding they've had enough.




Oh, I'm not suggesting that was is or ever could be the right answer ...

I'm trying to illustrate that the problem is not new, at all, and "solutions," including Staff College bar solutions, are endless. 

My _belief_, and that's all it is, is that some of our problems are structural and resulted from Mr Hellyer's re-organization of the 1960s; others are a result of roles and tasks ~ I_ think_ that Pierre Trudeau's foreign policy shift (1969/70) had a hugely detrimental impact on the CF's image of itself and its role and *I believe*, still, almost 50 years after the fact, that morale was damaged. The senior leadership in the 1970s did not do all that much to inspire confidence, despite their wartime service.

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			











My _feeling _~ again, nothing more than that ~ is that we, Canada, have let too much time and too many events pass without taking a cold, hard, fundamental look at the changes that the Pearson and Trudeau (père) governments put in place. We are, _in my opinion_, overdue for that "look," and I hope one will come and that it will help to address the problems that have been with us for a long time. 

I think we need to understand that the military is not always / usually / often (take you pick) the career of choice for the young people from the middle of the bell curve and perhaps we need to adjust both our expectations and those of society, too. Maybe a peacetime, standing, professional army cannot / need not, perhaps even ought not to reflect the society which it serves. I don't know the answers ~  :-\ :dunno: ~ but:

     1. I like what _*both*_ PPCLI Guy and MCG are saying because they both have ideas;

     2. I believe that leadership matters more than money; and

     3. I affirm that the problem is not new.


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So are you suggesting, Pusser, the crap show that recently came to light with Brookfield is a figment of imagination or a better move experience than in the past?
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else but myself but from my standpoint it was a better feeling in past moves for me than in recent times.



I'm suggesting no such thing.  The recent fiasco was a class A clusterf**k, but don't confuse the policy with its execution.  My point is that the policy and the actual benefits that members receive on posting has seen a net improvement.  The execution of the program, not so much.  The biggest problem with the old system was a lack of consistency.  Some ORs were very reasonable and pragmatic and others were not.  Some, frankly, broke the law.  Those who pine for the old ways are usually the ones who were well treated and got what they asked for (and sometimes more).  That doesn't mean that everyone had similar experiences.  I will concede, however, that the culture of denial, currently resident in DCBA (who really controls all of this, not Brookfield) is not helping things.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Apr 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> Somewhere on these boards, I have suggested something similar to elements of this Journey.  Instead of looking at it from a Reg F career flexibility perspective, I was looking more at the RegF/PRes boundary.
> 
> Currently, all Reg F positions have an Operational Baseline Type and I would either build on this or create a separate designation to differentiate between positions that can accept a limited liability occupant and positions require an unlimited liability occupant.  All Class B/A positions would become Reg F positions with a limited liability occupant acceptable designation (PRes incumbents would remain until end of current TOS, then be given the option to CT or vacate the position).
> 
> ...



I've read this over a few times, and have a question.  I can see this working for the trades with larger numbers;  HR Admin, AVN Techs, etc.  What about smaller trades?  WFE Tech is pretty small IIRC, Geo Tech, my trade is PMLd around 200.

How would you keep the 'circulation' healthy enough with small numbers;  no every who wanted it could get limited liability.  Max 5 years limited, then have to go unlimited?  Or, would some trades just not have the option.  I'm sure the 1 Div boss would be quite interested in keeping planes crewed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2018)

Wouldn't really be feasible with naval units.  That's part of the problem already.  Many folks who are unfit sea, so the remainder are pier head jumped from ship to ship until they burn out and become broken themselves or release.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2018)

If there are excessive numbers unfit sea, maybe we need to release more, not less...


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If there are excessive numbers unfit sea, maybe we need to release more, not less...



And replace them with what...?  They can't attract enough now without taking out more who are in a shore billet that would also need to be filled.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And replace them with what...?  They can't attract enough now without taking out more who are in a shore billet that would also need to be filled.



That's the rub.  But beyond what point do we start to say "No, too many have restrictions, so we can't afford to retain more with restrictions"?

For example, should the MSE Op career manager retain folks unfit field, unable to drive DND MSE, because they can do static garrison work?


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2018)

There are still MSE needs outside of the field environment such as bases and the school at Borden.  At the very least they should be in a position to train any such new QL3 that might be coming in the system.

You start to cut too far without new growth (new recruits coming in), then you may as well do this as a trade and organization.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't.  Or for we sailors, caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

 :surrender:


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2018)

The challenge is always "where do you draw the line"?

We have institutional design problems that need to be rectified; training system capacity problems; and then we have to determine what we can afford to retain.  But "retention above all" at the expense of "deployability" leads to burnout and release among those who can deploy, and do deploy, but reach their limits.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge is always "where do you draw the line"?
> 
> We have institutional design problems that need to be rectified; training system capacity problems; and then we have to determine what we can afford to retain.  But "retention above all" at the expense of "deployability" leads to burnout and release among those who can deploy, and do deploy, but reach their limits.



It's a Catch 22 vicious cycle death spiral.  It's not just the training system, as has been mentioned in other threads, recruiting is FUBAR.  Many whom might be interested in coming get tired of the run around and waiting game.

I don't know where to begin, there are so many things wrong with why we're hurting so badly.


----------



## McG (18 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I've read this over a few times, and have a question.  I can see this working for the trades with larger numbers;  HR Admin, AVN Techs, etc.  What about smaller trades?  WFE Tech is pretty small IIRC, Geo Tech, my trade is PMLd around 200.
> 
> How would you keep the 'circulation' healthy enough with small numbers;  no every who wanted it could get limited liability.  Max 5 years limited, then have to go unlimited?  Or, would some trades just not have the option.  I'm sure the 1 Div boss would be quite interested in keeping planes crewed.


You are correct, and even large trades would be in trouble if too many people decide “to Journey.”  In addition to explicitly categorizing positions as suitable (or not) for accepting those pers desiring the static lifestyle, I think there would have to be a cap on maximum number of people who could enter the geographicaly static (or limited liability) stream.  I don’t know what that number is; it is possibly a percentage of the total number of positions managed by the occupation, or maybe it is a percentage of only the number of positions which which are open to limited liability personnel.  

And if demand for geo-static TOS significantly exceeds the number of such positions that the CAF (or a particular occupation) can support, how do we manage that? It could just be a first come first serve system where a few guys could occupy an MOS’s few limited liability positions for years.  Or maybe limited liability TOS are all of shorter duration and offers to renew limited liability TOS are not extended where an occupation has become congested (or TOS boards are conducted to determine who will be offered new TOS in a given year).


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't know where to begin, there are so many things wrong with why we're hurting so badly.



True enough.  It is a very complex beast to wrestle with, and the second and third order effects are often both significant and difficult to discern.

That doesn't mean that we should just tinker on the edges, or accept the current situation - it just means that a first principles review is in order, with a holistic and encompassing plan as the output, in the full knowledge that not everyone will be satisfied with the result.

I wish the "Journey Team" all the best!


----------



## McG (18 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If youth today plan on having 7 different careers in their life, let's figure out how to make 4 of them on the military


Maybe this can be a piece of the solution to avoiding congestion within an MOS? "_Sorry sergeant, I know you are looking for geo-static TOS but there are no accommodating infantry positions in this location.  However there are several entry level CSS positions if you are interested in taking an OT._"  There are some people who would never find an offer like this interesting, and there are others who might. So maybe we could add this to the list of career options one day offered to those who want to transition between unlimited liability and limited liability service.


----------



## Maj K.C. MacLean (18 Apr 2018)

This is a very interesting discussion thread, as far as policy goes, we have a pretty agile service model already.  Technically you can go from full-time to part-time in the Reserve Force and component transfer between the Reg and Res Force.  There is potential to extend flexible work arrangements found in the Public service with the caveat of 'subject to operational exigencies' to the Regular Force.  I would suggest that this could be done now under a CO's authority. 

What is lacking is an agile business process and related management tool to move people around and a more comprehensive career management capability that could move people between Regular, Reserve and potentially Public Service.  This can all be done without any changes to the NDA or QR&O and only minor tweaks to orders, directives and instructions.  Imagine a world where you could move between Reg/Res/ Public Service - fulltime/part time with the drag and drop of a mouse.

Moving to a Restricted/Unrestricted model is fundamentally flawed as it subverts the fundamentals of the Profession of Arms as outlined in the capstone document Duty with Honour and require significant changes to the NDA and QR&O .  I would also put forth that it would be a monster to manage, what do you do with those that declare to be unrestricted (ie Reg Force today) yet DAG Red or are left out of Battle for other reasons?

It would be better to equalize a base rate of pay and incentivize actions rather than gambling on future potential.

Applying a GBA+ lens to this, what demographic is likely to elect a ‘restriction’?  I would hazard a guess that you will likely find a good number of single parents, service spouses and more likely than not those in their child bearing years who desire to spend more time with the children in the early years. What about those that are subject to Medical Employment limitations? Do we pay the ill and injured less as they non-deployable?  How will this play out in the court of public opinion.  Would it survive a charter challenge?

Stuff to think about.

Recommend reading http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/dn-nd/D2-150-2003-1-eng.pdf


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Apr 2018)

I know a young fellow just starting DP1.1 after three years of waiting. Reg F.

He is going to quit once he gets qualified. Peeved "sitting around drinking coffee".


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> True enough.  It is a very complex beast to wrestle with, and the second and third order effects are often both significant and difficult to discern.
> 
> That doesn't mean that we should just tinker on the edges, or accept the current situation - it just means that a first principles review is in order, with a holistic and encompassing plan as the output, in the full knowledge that not everyone will be satisfied with the result.
> 
> I wish the "Journey Team" all the best!



As always, our best assets are our people.  I'm sure we have out there some innovative thinkers who would find the challenge attractive, interesting and ultimately, possible.

I always liked sitting down and trying to facilitate a solution to a problem or just a bit of good idea fairy "this would be good to have/do".  Of course, the solution to what's killing us is light years beyond and bigger than the small time things I'd try or attempt.  But l am positive that, that someone or group of people are out there that thrive on this shit and can take down the elephant.  I worked for one such person until last July, when she left us for Transport Canada.  

I agree, PPCLI, good luck to whomever that group will be.  And l do wish them every success.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I know a young fellow just starting DP1.1 after three years of waiting. Reg F.
> 
> He is going to quit once he gets qualified. Peeved "sitting around drinking coffee".



There are many young guys like that on PAT PL in Esquimalt.  We kill them with inaction.  They'll leave too.


----------



## Loachman (18 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They'll leave too.



And talk about their experiences on social media.

Word-of-mouth - technically-enhanced, now - is the most effective means of advertising.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2018)

Sadly true.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2018)

More meaningful training and operational deployments for platoon and company sized groups. Europe dog and pony shows not so much. People joined the military to travel and for adventure, not spend summers in Wainwright validating a brigade we'll never deploy as.

Trash our procurement system and make a new one so we can get needed equipment next year not in 10 years.

Trash our recruiting system and make a new one so applicants aren't waiting months or years to join.

Bring back the requirement to pass a fitness test before joining the military.

Revamp our medical system so malingerers can't sit on T-cats until a sexy tasking course or deployment comes up where upon they miraculously heal. We shouldn't have someone collecting $64'000 a year (plus $500 a month LDA) for working in a canteen selling chips and pop for 3 or 4 years.

Get rid of caustic members faster.

Make promotions based on merit and standardized tests (like the Americans possibly?) and not a popularity contest (as it is in many cases it seems).

More white space for NCOs to conduct their own training.

Deal with the back log of people awaiting training.


----------



## Loachman (18 Apr 2018)

Agreed, plus:



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Make promotions based on merit and standardized tests



And a credit for seniority. I've seen too many smart but, in many ways, clueless people promoted while too young and despite huge knowledge and experience gaps. Most of them eventually grow into their roles, but some don't. Some of them can be dangerous while acquiring experience.

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment".


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2018)

LCol K.C. MacLean said:
			
		

> What about those that are subject to Medical Employment limitations? Do we pay the ill and injured less as they non-deployable?  How will this play out in the court of public opinion.  Would it survive a charter challenge?



We already know what will happen. Media outrage for 15 minutes until they find another story. The CAF recently changed the policy to anyone on TCAT over 180 days was to lose allowances. We ARE cutting pay from members who are ill and injured (and retroactively recovering the allowances) and the public couldn't care less.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We already know what will happen. Media outrage for 15 minutes until they find another story. The CAF recently changed the policy to anyone on TCAT over 180 days was to lose allowances. We ARE cutting pay from members who are ill and injured (and retroactively recovering the allowances) and the public couldn't care less.



Allowances are not pay.

If you're unfit to conduct the duties that an allowance is additional compensation for, you should not be compensated for it.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Allowances are not pay.
> 
> If you're unfit to conduct the duties that an allowance is additional compensation for, you should not be compensated for it.



Completely fair, especially if it was the Army that decided you should jump out of an airplane in parachutes with an ungodly descent rate where you shattered your back. Or if you got shot overseas and now have to come home and lose your LDA as well as your ability to walk while you recover.  :facepalm:  

We talk about trying to retain people, then dick them around on allowances for service-connected injuries. Especially with a medical system that is content to push people onto TCAT before a diagnosis, or throw them into physio before imaging can confirm exactly what's wrong. Then the guy sits on that TCAT for 6-8 months waiting for a specialist to do the surgery, and take their allowances away while they wait.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Apr 2018)

So you are saying that allowances are not connected to the activity for which they are granted?  But rather to the fact that one had once earned them?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So you are saying that allowances are not connected to the activity for which they are granted?  But rather to the fact that one had once earned them?



No, I'm saying if we break someone temporarily, then we shouldn't be taking money out of their pocket causing both medical and financial hardship. If someone will never be able to return to full duties, then of course they shouldn't be collecting allowances for those duties anymore. Are we that hard up for cash that we cannot afford allowances for the roughly 12% (not all would be environmental allowance eligible) of the CAF who are on TCAT?


----------



## Loachman (18 Apr 2018)

Those allowances are _*not*_ the correct mechanism to support injured people.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying if we break someone temporarily, then we shouldn't be taking money out of their pocket causing both medical and financial hardship. If someone will never be able to return to full duties, then of course they shouldn't be collecting allowances for those duties anymore. Are we that hard up for cash that we cannot afford allowances for the roughly 12% (not all would be environmental allowance eligible) of the CAF who are on TCAT?



How temporary is temporary?  Six months sounds plenty temporary to me.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How temporary is temporary?  Six months sounds plenty temporary to me.



Blew my knee out, took a year to get back to full duties. In that time I went to the field, working in the Ops cell. Took 6 months after the 4 weeks of being screwed around and not getting imaging to get in with the surgeon for a 4-6 month rehab. Rushed myself back to get my promotion that was waiting for me (that issue with the system is fixed). The new policy leaves no latitude for the CoC to decide whether a member is able to at least partially complete their duties and retain allowances.

We pay out someone's operational allowances if they're a med repat from tour to the tune of 10s of thousands of dollars, but we're going to dock someone's $400 a month LDA because they're in a crappy base without adequate medical support and have to wait for a specialist? Or all the folks that are "med fit" but never go on a field ex? Maybe people should have to do X days a year in the field to retain allowances, that would surely meet the bar that you're suggesting we have. Then we can pull their pay because they missed the one field ex the unit had that year because they were on a career course.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Blew my knee out, took a year to get back to full duties. In that time I went to the field, working in the Ops cell. Took 6 months after the 4 weeks of being screwed around and not getting imaging to get in with the surgeon for a 4-6 month rehab. Rushed myself back to get my promotion that was waiting for me (that issue with the system is fixed). The new policy leaves no latitude for the CoC to decide whether a member is able to at least partially complete their duties and retain allowances.
> 
> We pay out someone's operational allowances if they're a med repat from tour to the tune of 10s of thousands of dollars, but we're going to dock someone's $400 a month LDA because they're in a crappy base without adequate medical support and have to wait for a specialist? Or all the folks that are "med fit" but never go on a field ex? Maybe people should have to do X days a year in the field to retain allowances, that would surely meet the bar that you're suggesting we have. Then we can pull their pay because they missed the one field ex the unit had that year because they were on a career course.



I couldn't agree more.  And the only people that say allowances should be pulled are those who have never suffered a serious injury themselves. 

1.5 years is a more realistic number given the limitations of our medical system.  Professional athletes often spend 6 months to a year on ice if they get hurt and those people have access to the best medical care in the world.  We expect our members to be better after six months?  Give me a break!

I've suffered two injuries in my life that took a year+ to heal.

Lacerated Spleen - 1 month in the hospital, 14 months no activity other than walking, CT Scan once a month for 14 months to check that the hole in my organ was closing.

Cyst on my tailbone - Surgery and the wound was left open to naturally close in order to prevent infection.  I had surgery and then spent almost 10 months on the mend which involved going to the hospital daily for the first 4 months to have a nurse clean the wound and pack it full of gauze.  Daily then went to every other day, than weekly.  The wound closed just in time for me to go on DP 1.1 at the Infantry School.  I was "medically fit" nvm I hadn't trained in almost a year again.  I was one of the 30% to pass that summer lol.  

The allowance is tied to "service in an operational unit" it doesn't quantify what that service is.  Clawing back allowances is a punitive measure designed to target a very small minority of malingerers.  The problem is the service has no way to objectively gauge who those malingerers are and good people will also be punished.  

Post someone out of an operational unit if you want LDA taken away.  You know, that whole career management piece we have spent the past 5 pages talking about.  

Here is an idea, greatly expand the PSEL trade, every L4 and above will receive 1 PY which is a must-fill designated HR specialist.  Take career management away from the Regiments, Corps, Branches and give it to real professionals.  

Or we can continue to employ infantry officers with a background in Kinesiology and Captains of the Football Team as our HR Gurus  :rofl:


----------



## brihard (19 Apr 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> *Cyst on my tailbone - Surgery and the wound was left open* to naturally close in order to prevent infection.  I had surgery and then spent almost 10 months on the mend which involved going to the hospital daily for the first 4 months to have a nurse clean the wound and pack it full of gauze.  Daily then went to every other day, than weekly.  The wound closed just in time for me to go on DP 1.1 at the Infantry School.  I was "medically fit" nvm I hadn't trained in almost a year again.  *I was one of the 30% to pass that summer lol*.



Well sure. You had already been literally torn a news arsehole. What else was left for the infantry school to do to you?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Apr 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Well sure. You had already been literally torn a news arsehole. What else was left for the infantry school to do to you?



Well played, sir. Well played.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Apr 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Well sure. You had already been literally torn a news arsehole. What else was left for the infantry school to do to you?



 :rofl:

I treated the surgery and follow up care as a pre-course "enema"  ;D


----------



## Pusser (19 Apr 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The allowance is tied to "service in an operational unit" it doesn't quantify what that service is.  Clawing back allowances is a punitive measure designed to target a very small minority of malingerers.



Not true at all.  Although the specific factors for which environmental allowances are paid are not laid out in the regulations, they are included in the Treasury Board submissions and approvals.  In other words, TB approves these allowances based on the assumption that the recipients are being subjected to very specific things for specific amounts of time (e.g. there is a minimum amount per year that a ship is supposed to be at sea in order for members of that ship's company to receive SDA on a monthly basis otherwise, they should be drawing CASSDA).  If the CAF were to ignore the specific factors, there is a risk that TB approval of the allowance could be rescinded.

Personnel who are not being subjected to the specific factors for which environmental allowances are paid should not be drawing them.  However, hanging the sick and injured out to dry is not acceptable either.  A better solution needs to be found.  Having said that, why should the cook who's posted to a ship and gets hit by a bus on his way to work in his homeport continue to draw SDA, while his buddy, who's a cook posted to a galley ashore and was hit by the same bus and suffered the same injuries and prognosis, does not?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Not true at all.  Although the specific factors for which environmental allowances are paid are not laid out in the regulations, they are included in the Treasury Board submissions and approvals.  In other words, TB approves these allowances based on the assumption that the recipients are being subjected to very specific things for specific amounts of time (e.g. there is a minimum amount per year that a ship is supposed to be at sea in order for members of that ship's company to receive SDA on a monthly basis otherwise, they should be drawing CASSDA).  If the CAF were to ignore the specific factors, there is a risk that TB approval of the allowance could be rescinded.
> 
> Personnel who are not being subjected to the specific factors for which environmental allowances are paid should not be drawing them.  However, hanging the sick and injured out to dry is not acceptable either.  A better solution needs to be found.  Having said that, why should the cook who's posted to a ship and gets hit by a bus on his way to work in his homeport continue to draw SDA, while his buddy, who's a cook posted to a galley ashore and was hit by the same bus and suffered the same injuries and prognosis, does not?



Technically, you are correct.  The reality is there is a list of units that get certain allowances.  You automatically get them when posted there.  Irrespective of your job.

My point is, instead of clawing someone's allowance.  Post the person so they no longer collect it.  It's pretty simple.  The mechanisms for removing the allowance are already there, it's called posting someone to either JPSU or a non-operational unit.

The real red herring in the room is CAF Human Resources Malpractice.  We have all the policy in the world to deal with these issues, we just refuse to because it's easier to maintain the status quo.

CANSOF is a prime example of this.  They created brand new trades CBRN Op, SF Op, Assaulter, etc and now they have nowhere to put guys when they inevitably get broken because those trades have no ERE.  

They did this because the Army and other Elements display no sort of maturity in dealing with specialists and rather than seeing them as assets, took an adversarial approach when dealing with them.

I've personally experienced this in my own trade.  Be a little different, go against the tribe, get burned  8)

Our attempt to deal with this is to create ever larger number of sub-classifications, sub-occupations, new commands, etc.  Our solutions cause more problems.


----------



## McG (19 Apr 2018)

LCol K.C. MacLean said:
			
		

> Moving to a Restricted/Unrestricted model is fundamentally flawed as it subverts the fundamentals of the Profession of Arms as outlined in the capstone document Duty with Honour …


I assume you are referencing the fact that that Duty with Honour describes unlimited liability a definitive element that makes military service a true and unique profession.  But being honest, unlimited liability already is not applicable to PRes service for Class A, B, and B/A.  And some of what Journey will do is to relax some of the liabilities currently imposed on Reg F (Class C PRes would not see any reprieve of liabilities as they are effectively unlimited liability Reg F).



			
				LCol K.C. MacLean said:
			
		

> Moving to a Restricted/Unrestricted model is fundamentally flawed as it …[will] require significant changes to the NDA and QR&O.


Neither of these should be barriers to progress.  Both are amendable.  Where the previous government changed both to advance its buttons & bows transformation initiative, we should not be afraid to have them changed again to achieve actual benefits to the operations and management of the CAF.  

… And even if we want to keep the status quo, we probably need to change the NDA as it currently has continuous full time employment as a feature of the Reg F where we have thoroughly established that in the PRes with Class B/A (and even some cases of persistent Class B spots).



			
				LCol K.C. MacLean said:
			
		

> … what do you do with those that declare to be unrestricted (ie Reg Force today) yet DAG Red or are left out of Battle for other reasons?


“LOB for other reasons” means we are looking at a CAF decision not to deploy a member.  In that case, there is no requirement to remove the member from their status as unlimited liability.  To DAG red would be more complicated.  For both medical and compassionate scenarios, the CAF would have to determine how long it is prepared to maintain pay for something the member is not able to do.  I would say 12 months is probably good, and within that period of time there will be an APS during which someone could be posted to a limited liability compatible position if the compassionate or medical situation will last longer.



			
				LCol K.C. MacLean said:
			
		

> It would be better to equalize a base rate of pay and incentivize actions rather than gambling on future potential.


In general, I think I agree with this.  It is exactly the position that I have taken with respect to LDA, dive pay, parachute pay, and most other environmental allowances for a number of years now.  So if we are serious about really looking at how we do things, then I guess this needs examination too.  From another thread:





			
				HULK_011 said:
			
		

> The Military [Pay] Factor is defined as:
> 
> It is important to note that the TC analyses, as applied to the CAF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CAF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers. As of April 1, 2016, the Military Factor stands at 8.7% for non-commissioned members and for general service officers. These recent increases were in recognition of a higher operational tempo and resulting increases in the incidence of separation, and a new component (Personal Limitations and Liabilities), which further recognizes the implications inherent in the military system of unlimited liability. Another less obvious example is the fact that CAF members are not eligible for overtime. To adjust for this in the TC analyses, values of 6% of salary for non-commissioned members and 4% of salary for general service officers are used.
> 
> ...


So, limited liability and unlimited liability pay goes to 86.3% of current Reg F pay (ie. 91.3 % is the new 100%).  Environmental allowances become replaced by casual “super” allowances (eg. LDA is replaced by a super LDA). Posting benefits are increased such that, on top of the posting allowance, a 20% monthly bonous is paid the first year in a new location, a 10% monthly bonous is paid the second year, and then the posting benefits stops. We will need a mechanism to pay overtime in garrison (field and sea pay should account for this so that overtime is not required with these activities), and this mechanism might include more flexibility to employ short leave (then again, it could cause more restrictions on how we use short leave).

But under the “be careful what you wish for” column, it is important to consider that anything which reduces base pay by transferring compensation to an allowance will also have the effect of reducing pension potential.




			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Allowances are not pay.
> 
> If you're unfit to conduct the duties that an allowance is additional compensation for, you should not be compensated for it.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely fair, especially if it was the Army that decided you should jump out of an airplane in parachutes with an ungodly descent rate where you shattered your back. Or if you got shot overseas and now have to come home and lose your LDA as well as your ability to walk while you recover.  :facepalm:


The Army (and most other military L1s for that matter) is routinely deciding for take away environmental allowances for far more reasons that just medical.  "You are doing exceptionally well Bloggins, so we have decided to send you in as RSS to support the PRes across town.  By the way, your LDA will stop with this."



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Clawing back allowances is a punitive measure designed to target a very small minority of malingerers.





			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... instead of clawing someone's allowance.  Post the person so they no longer collect it.  It's pretty simple.  The mechanisms for removing the allowance are already there, it's called posting someone to either JPSU or a non-operational unit.


Those who are posted for being medically unfit will still see the process as punitive.  And what if a field unit has a job that can accommodate a medically unfit member?  Why not have a mechanism that allows a mutually beneficial accommodation even while the member is unable to go to the field and earn LDA?


----------

