# Replenishing the Reserves, while cutting NDHQ reserve excesses



## PanaEng (27 Oct 2010)

Interesting article in the Globe and Mail (shared according to law)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/replenishing-canadas-reserves/article1773976/

As we decry the ignorance of the Canadian public about our Canadian Forces, it seems to me that the Reserves are the answer to the problem - they are the ones the public sees more often and the more they see citizens in uniform the more interested the population would be about the issues.


> The reserves ensure that the connection between the army and its citizens remains strong. So it’s vital that our army be present throughout the country as it is in the 130 reserve units in 110 communities across Canada. An army garrisoned on a few large bases loses contact with the people it’s intended to protect.



cheers,
Frank


----------



## pbi (27 Oct 2010)

I'm an ex-RegF who started in the Res in the 1970's, stuck it out for eight years, then CT'd to the Regular Army in '82. I've seen both sides of the fence, and seen each side from "the other side". Things are MUCH better for the Res now than they were in 1974, but systemic problems still lurk, and conditions could easily slip backwards if we don't watch out. 

The time could be right to give a large boost to the public image of the Reserves: over the last few years the Canadian public from Victoria BC to Sydney NS have come to realize that those "kids down at the Armoury" are actually soldiers who serve, fight, and sometimes die, just as their predecessors in their units have since we first formed a Militia in this country. Res have performed, big time, in domestic ops of all sorts, both armed and unarmed: gone are the days when the local Res unit was forced to stand by with its hands in its collective pockets while the RegF handled all the domops.  The Regular Army (or anybody in it with a brain...) has learned (or maybe "re-learned") the value of the Reserve to the total force structure, and not just in "niche" jobs like CIMIC and IA. 

Public engagement by Reservists, right now, is vital. In this country, if you're not on the public radar, you get forgotten pretty quickly. Soldiers of all rank levels-(the more junior the better, actually)-need to seize every possible opportunity to talk to schools, community groups, get on community media stations, get in the local paper, or do whatever it takes to get "in the face" of their communities and remind them that the Res is not a grown-up version of Cadets, or "Dad's Army". If the Res waits for initiatives like this to come from "higher", Satan will be issuing parkas before that happens.

Cheers


----------



## Dog Walker (27 Oct 2010)

To get it back on track.....

Military cuts to target reservists, paper pushers, general says 
COLIN FREEZE and CAMPBELL CLARK 
Toronto and Ottawa— From Thursday's Globe and Mail 
Published Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2010 9:23PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2010 9:39PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/military-cuts-to-target-reservists-paper-pushers-general-says/article1775604/

The soldier in charge of coming up with a leaner Canadian Forces is signalling that the axe will fall on the defence bureaucracy and the ranks of reservists to spare a fighting force that will be deployed to war zones and natural disasters. 
In his first major speech since he took the role as “Chief of Transformation” in June, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie outlined a vision of a post-Afghanistan Canadian military that has fewer paper-pushers and that won’t skimp on mission might. 
“Let’s not think about tinkering with outputs, the folks who actually go outside their bases,” the three-star general said during a speech to Toronto’s Empire Club on Wednesday. “... Let’s focus on the overheads, and not on the field force.” 
The military appreciates the taxpayers’ top-ups of the past decade, he said, but “we know that every penny is important.” 
In a new era of deficit constraints in Ottawa, the military’s choices are stark: It must cut soldiers and military hardware or redundant bases and staff. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs – and untold lives in future hot spots – hang in the balance. 
With the Canadian Forces slated to pull out of Afghanistan by next summer, Defence Minister Peter MacKay told Lt.-Gen. Leslie to figure out the military’s future after consulting broadly with soldiers, officers and academics. 
Lt.-Gen. Leslie’s mandate is to trim about 5 per cent of the Canadian Forces’ $19-billion base budget immediately, without compromising future operations. “Once we finish this review over the next couple of months – not a lot of time – we’ll be making our report,” he told the Empire Club. 
A third-generation soldier with a sparkling 30-year career, he reflected on how he had himself been in situations where under-equipped soldiers were rendered powerless in peacekeeping operations that “went pear-shaped.” 
He seems unwilling to cut back on matériel: The Canadian Forces still needs “big aircraft and ships that can carry stuff,” Lt.-Gen. Leslie said, adding that armoured vehicles save soldiers’ lives when conditions get dangerous on land. 
He declined an invitation to give his opinion on the Conservative government’s controversial plan to spend billions on state-of-the-art fighter jets. “That is the realm of the political,” he said. “And you don’t want your generals delving into politics while they are in uniform.” 
And now the politicians and Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk must decide whether generals have too much support staff. Successive governments – both Liberal and Conservative – have created what many observers call a top-heavy military command, one supplemented at the bottom in recent years with burgeoning ranks of reservists eager to join the Afghan conflict. 
The Canadian Forces has about 11,200 full-time reservists and another 23,700 part-timers. These “unprecedented” numbers, Lt.-Gen. Leslie said, have to come down. He expressed hopes the full-timers will join the conventional forces or settle into part-time work. 
He said he is consulting widely – even probing “all sorts of information databases” – to figure out the military of the future. The world is unpredictable, he said, and Canada’s soldiers will have to respond to volatile foreign conflicts, natural disasters, increased cyber-attacks, and continued terrorist threats. 
The military’s current budget projections amount to $44-billion less than the $490-billion earmarked in the 20-year-plan that the Conservatives came up with a couple of years ago. 
The 2008 plan had called for expanding the numbers of both regular forces and reserves. 
Now Lt.-Gen. Leslie is looking at cutting personnel at headquarters – which now has about 12,000 uniformed soldiers and 28,000 civilians – to shrink the military’s overall ranks, which now number about 69,000. 
How much of this can be done in Ottawa rather than on bases in rural communities will have to be determined. “The fact of the matter is, we have so many redundant bases, it’s a drag on the system,” said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, formerly head of the Senate’s national-security committee. “... You could easily find a billion in overhead [there], but I don’t think there is the stomach to do so.”


----------



## Teeps74 (27 Oct 2010)

Saw that Globe article too... I wonder what was in his head when he suggested us reservists CT, while CTs are currently closed? Does not show us an awful lot of for thought now does it?


----------



## NSDreamer (27 Oct 2010)

Hrm cutting us down. I'm already working about 20 hours a week of my own time to cut down on the budget and I just started...can't imagine how much the older officers work..


----------



## Teeps74 (27 Oct 2010)

I highly recommend AGAINST working for free, as it gives the idea that they can cut us more. Fact of the matter is tho, too many of us love our Regiments to allow the Regiment to fail, despite the FACT that we are not given the tools necessary to succeed (budget, rations and bullets). We, the reserves are very quickly sliding back towards the early 90s, and we are still actively fighting a war...

Argh. To say I have been losing sleep since this time last year (when the original announcement of SLASHING the reserves came out) would be a huge understatement.


----------



## dogger1936 (28 Oct 2010)

How about to save money we get rid of these civilian companies that run everything?

To start:
Why do we have commissionears?
Why do we have civilians running driver wheeled courses?
Why do we have cleaning companies?

Last time I checked there were always Mcpl's and troops sitting around at some point during the lull's. Duties where the commissionears work replaced by NCO's and NCM's, troops can clean there own darn buildings and imagine mcpl-sgt's teaching driver wheeled courses!

Before we look at cutting the reserves let's look at the civilians who provide NOTHING to the fighting force. I would rather have 20,000 reservist than 10,000 civilians.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Why do we have commissionears?



You want to man the checkpoints and gates at 2am, fill your boots.



> Why do we have civilians running driver wheeled courses?



I beleive we got there because we had a shortage of people available to instruct.



> Why do we have cleaning companies?



Weren't we talking about retention a little while ago........waxing floors...thats gonna do it right ?



> Last time I checked



Maybe you should check a bit more outside your little world.


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Oct 2010)

Yes, so now we are talking about CUTS to military personnel. Retention does not seem to be the problem at the moment. Wasting money does.


----------



## dogger1936 (28 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You want to man the checkpoints and gates at 2am, fill your boots.
> 
> I beleive we got there because we had a shortage of people available to instruct.
> 
> ...



Yes my little world compared to yours.

You can't remember cleaning out offices as a troop?

You've never done duty sgt sitting next to a commissionear who is doing the same thing; wondering why your even there??

We can't employ reserves to run driver wheeled courses instead of cutting THEIR employment?

How many millions do we spend to have civilians doing work we can do? Sure get someone in to wxax floors...but do we need cleaners who sit around in buildings gosiping and smoking most of their day?

Please tell me where thats wrong?


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

Sorry, something happenned and i am having to re-type my response.




			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> You can't remember cleaning out offices as a troop?



I remember doing it and i remeber not liking it. I also remembered serving coffee at the Petawawa WO & Sgts mess and being glad when the CO put a stop to that and civvies started doing it. I didnt join the CF to serve toast and coffee on wednesday mornings......



> You've never done duty sgt sitting next to a commissionear who is doing the same thing; wondering why your even there??



Nope, never had the pleasure. I have dont lots of "duty this" and "duty that" wondering why i was there though. What i can say now is that i am perfectly happy my time ( and my troops' time) is not being wasted at the flightline gate, checking passes or waving in cars at the base's front gate.



> We can't employ reserves to run driver wheeled courses instead of cutting THEIR employment?



Thats a good idea. I wonder how many guys arent interested in taking a tasking like this rather that keep themselves available for a tour. Will the windown in Afg. affect something like that ?



> Sure get someone in to wxax floors...but do we need cleaners who sit around in buildings gosiping and smoking most of their day?



How long do you think soldiers will stick around if what they do is wax floors and clean toilets ? Talk to alot of Navy guys about cleaning stations on ships.......Its been mentioned on this site has a big dissatisfier.....


----------



## brihard (28 Oct 2010)

Hell, we want to save money? OK, how much each year gets wasted on TD claims? Every sumemr when I go off to teach I get $17 or so above my base pay each day for the first month, and then eleven or twelve bucks a day past that point. All to cover expenses that don't actually exist.

I'm glad, as a student, to be getting the money- but sucking back and taking an objective look at it, if the rest of the CF is as wasteful with TD funds as I've seen in my short time in, there's enough right there to get substantially more ammo to the reserves for training.

I'm sure we can all look around and think of a plethora of instances where money is being wasted- that is to say, given out for some sort of perceived need or some sort of grandfathered-in entitlement, but doesn't correspond to an actual expense incurred. Hell, we're basically closed to recruits- why are many of the Class B positions at CFRC being retained? A friend of mine working there conceded that these days his job could be effectively performed by a sign on the door saying 'Sorry, we're full'.

I don't want to stray any farther out of my arcs, but again- just look around and ask yourself honestly how much money you see being regularly wasted.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> All to cover expenses that don't actually exist.



So what do we do ? make it a case-by-case basis ? This kind of TD gets the $17 and this other one doesnt ? This is a serious question. Some TDs, i can assure you, the money is both needed and spent.



> Hell, we're basically closed to recruits- why are many of the Class B positions at CFRC being retained? A friend of mine working there conceded that these days his job could be effectively performed by a sign on the door saying 'Sorry, we're full'.



Thats an interesting one......i didnt think of that.


----------



## brihard (28 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So what do we do ? make it a case-by-case basis ? This kind of TD gets the $17 and this other one doesnt ? This is a serious question. Some TDs, i can assure you, the money is both needed and spent.
> 
> Thats an interesting one......i didnt think of that.



Legitimate criticism, don't get me wrong. Obviously there's no *simple* solution. But it's hard to argue that a lot of TD is wasted. In my (admittedly limited) experience - mostly going off to other bases with a pretty self contained lifestyle - little of what we're given seems necessary to cover what it putatively pays for. I can't say I've ever been on a tasking where simply being there was costing me another $17 per day out of pocket- particularly if I'm given R&Q. I probably stretch seventeen bucks a bit farther than many of the forces do, but I think my point contains some merit...

But I'm an infantard- I don't presume an ability to fix policy, just to point out its myriad shortcomings.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> but I think my point contains some merit...



Don't get me wrong, i agree 100%, hence why i was asking what the solution is. I'm on TD 3 times in November, 2 of them involving travelling clear across the country and the $17 will buy a coffee at more than one airport on the way there and back.


----------



## GAP (28 Oct 2010)

Military cuts to target reservists, paper pushers, general says
COLIN FREEZE and CAMPBELL CLARK Toronto and Ottawa— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2010 
Article Link

The soldier in charge of coming up with a leaner Canadian Forces is signalling that the axe will fall on the defence bureaucracy and the ranks of reservists to spare a fighting force that will be deployed to war zones and natural disasters.

In his first major speech since he took the role as “Chief of Transformation” in June, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie outlined a vision of a post-Afghanistan Canadian military that has fewer paper-pushers and that won’t skimp on mission might. 

“Let’s not think about tinkering with outputs, the folks who actually go outside their bases,” the three-star general said during a speech to Toronto’s Empire Club on Wednesday. “... Let’s focus on the overheads, and not on the field force.”

The military appreciates the taxpayers’ top-ups of the past decade, he said, but “we know that every penny is important.”

In a new era of deficit constraints in Ottawa, the military’s choices are stark: It must cut soldiers and military hardware or redundant bases and staff. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs – and untold lives in future hot spots – hang in the balance. 
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2010)

I'm still looking for the text of Leslie's speech, but this from the article above intrigued me:


> .... The Canadian Forces has about 11,200 full-time reservists and another 23,700 part-timers. These “unprecedented” numbers, Lt.-Gen. Leslie said, have to come down. He expressed hopes the full-timers will join the conventional forces or settle into part-time work ....


_If quoted properly_, this sounds pretty specific about targeting Reservists.  I'm going to assume the 11.2K are Class B/C and 23.7K Class A.

Hold onto your hats Class B's!


----------



## NSDreamer (28 Oct 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I highly recommend AGAINST working for free, as it gives the idea that they can cut us more. Fact of the matter is tho, too many of us love our Regiments to allow the Regiment to fail, despite the FACT that we are not given the tools necessary to succeed (budget, rations and bullets). We, the reserves are very quickly sliding back towards the early 90s, and we are still actively fighting a war...



 I understand what you're saying, however safety is a priority. As a Svc Bn we work with a lot of heavy machinery, workshops and driving so the potential for severe accidents is always there. On top of that I'm also the acting GSO for the newly raised Halifax Rifles who don't even have a security program. I've had BSOTC so I'm basically qualified, but gods under heavens above LFAA gives me 1.5 days a month to get this work. It takes a lot more then that to get everything done for a 335 man BN spread out over two cities and to build an entire safety program for a newly raised unit when I barely have any idea what I'm doing. That being said I have a counterpart in the other city who is taking care of most of it for me, and LFAA has agreed to give him his own 1.5 class B days. However I'm still scrabbling to get this work done and yes end up doing much of my referencing and paper work in my off time. 

  It's either that, or leave safety behind and while safety is not our first priority, it's very close. I imagine that the workload spreads around to many other junior officers who get given a lot of 'craptasks' (not saying mine is) and who end up working on their own dime because they feel it will look bad upon them if they ask the CO for more days above their half day on Thursdays.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I highly recommend AGAINST working for free, as it gives the idea that they can cut us more. Fact of the matter is tho, too many of us love our Regiments to allow the Regiment to fail, despite the FACT that we are not given the tools necessary to succeed (budget, rations and bullets). We, the reserves are very quickly sliding back towards the early 90s, and we are still actively fighting a war...


Ideas discussed late last year....
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91078.0/all.html
Sigh....


----------



## pbi (28 Oct 2010)

Some observations.


The Class B thing shouldn't really be a surprise. The good general was making very loud, and very clear, noises about cutting "unnecessary" Class B positions while he was still CLS. I would say that the bow wave of this concern started about two years ago. The problem was (and is...) that it is hard to define what positions are actually not needed, since theoretically all of them were contracted to fill positions that the RegF couldn't. This trend started before Afghanistan, due to serious shortages in the RegF in filling less high-profile (read "less desireable") jobs like RSS and CFRC. It was aggravated by Afghanistan, but this is pretty understandable: stuff like that happens when you fight wars. Since IIRC the great majority of Class B and C Res are at the Capt/Snr NCO level,and not at the Pte/Cpl level, the RegF will not be able to "grow" the replacements overnight, if it is determined that they are needed to make the machine work. Making the decision will require some degree of  objective analysis ( I hope), as opposed to blindly swinging the axe as IMHO we have done all too often with pers reduction efforts in the history of the CF. Hopefully we will not cut off our nose just to spite our face.

That said, I don't see any real indication that the Gen is after the Res soldiers on the armoury floor: I doubt even he, zealous reformer that he has always been, would do an utterly counterproductive thing like that. He is an intelligent man, and I am pretty sure that as a wartime CLS and a past LFA Comd, he knows the value of Res. 

With Afgh winding down and the country struggling with financial issues, we are going to take cuts, which are SOP after any major conflict ends. The Res can't be immune to cuts: they just need to be applied intelligently.


Unfortunately, the general also made it clear during his tenure that he didn't like the LFA structure (recently "disguised" as JTFs) and floated at least one proposal to get rid of it. No doubt he is thinking about that again. For asome reason, LFAs have become the organization that everybody loves to hate. I think that deleting LFAs would be an extremely backward step. The LFAs were formed to do several very important and necessary things. IIRC, these included:

-to bring all of the diverse tasks and functions of Army units, bases ranges and training centres in each major region of the country under one regionally responsive structure belonging to the Army, not farming support and management responsibilities out to other Commands. I would single out force generation tasks as a key example. LFAs have consistently pulled off miracles of force generatuion (not without ragged edges or hurt feelings) far out of proportion to a small Army like ours, with a Res that essentially can't be mobilized without the Gov in Council getting involved;

-to put an "adult" in place to oversee the Bdes both Reg and Res. I single out the RegF Bdes: in my experience they were always the least cooperative, most "prima-donna"-ish and loudest in their pouting and foot-stamping about why the mean old LFA wouldn't let them do whatever they wanted, which usually meant spend money and resources in a manner opposite to what they'd been told to do.  I've lived through a number of examples of this in various capacities over the years. This suggests to me that if not under direct control, but rather under a more vague and distant control from the LS or "The Div", they would get out of hand;

-to better integrate the "two armies" of Reg and Res; which, if you think back to the days that this was done, was a much bigger concern than it is now that we've lived it for well over a decade.  I lived the old "two armies" system, and I worked at both LFA and Bde under the current system and IMHO the LFA system is much better, for everything from training support to fiscal and resource management to having a RegF GO who is ready to go to battle for his Res, not against them;

-to streamline the whole DomOps process which, let's face it, is mostly an Army job except for what the RCSCC's do. Each of the LFAs has very close and well-maintained relationships with its host Provincial Govts and their EMOs/LEAs, and has developed response plans based on regional realities. This capability has been proven in spades over the last decade and more, and has been instrumental in getting the Res closely involved in DomOps response which IMHO they should be;  and

-to rationalize and reduce the span of control of the CLS. Prior to the introduction of LFAs, the CLS was required to deal directly with almost the entire Bde/Base tier that now exists. Regardless of the usual Canadian normalization whinge that "we made it work", I suggest that the current structure of four LFA Comds and a single Comd LFDTS is much better, if only from the point of efficiency. (But I bet it's more effective, too).

If we bin the LFAs in a rush of blood to the collective institutional head, we will IMHO live to regret it. All of the boring, nasty, irritating tasks will still have to be done. Either they will fall on Bdes (who are not manned or organized in either the RegF or the Res to do them), or they will be grafted onto the "to-do" list of already undermanned ASUs, or they will drift upwards to a level of command quite detached from the reality of the situations it is dealing with. To wishfully think that these tasks will just "go away" is very unrealistic. Most Western Armies (and I single out the US and the UK) have some kind of regional, geographic command structure that does the things, moire or less, that our LFAs do for us. That should give us cause to think before acting.

Cheers


----------



## dogger1936 (28 Oct 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Sorry, something happenned and i am having to re-type my response.
> 
> 
> I remember doing it and i remeber not liking it. I also remembered serving coffee at the Petawawa WO & Sgts mess and being glad when the CO put a stop to that and civvies started doing it. I didnt join the CF to serve toast and coffee on wednesday mornings......
> ...



We all have to do less than desirable work. A CMBG has plenty of per's sitting around even when the brigade is deployed.An occasional mop out on a friday of the hanger offices before being cut loose at 13h00...I don't think it ever destroyed our morale.honestly what we use to complain about was why we were doing it....when we had CLEANERS! :nod: And honestly i'll take cleaning a shitter over burning it anyday.....and we did that.

Maybe the wind down will aid in this, however contracts are signed to these companies...I dunno how that would play out.

Just a bunch of money waste I've seen.

And how about base construction? CFHA? How was it they could run and maintain the PMQ's before...now we need a civilian company and base CE no longer fixs anything in the PMQ's? Civilians to mow our grass....the list goes on and on.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Oct 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> That said, I don't see any real indication that the Gen is after the Res soldiers on the armoury floor


With DIN access,* have a read of this doc, signed off for the CLS on 19 Oct.

I suspect the motivation of the budget numbers and slashing Cl B is to.... ahem, _encourage_....Res soldiers with a) Afghan experience, and/or b) productive full-time experience to CT to the RegF -- the former usually being younger soldiers who have 'proven' themselves operationally; the latter often being those pesky, but knowledgeable, annuitants.
The remainder get to re-enact the 1919 militia.


*** If you don't have DIN access, don't ask; while unclassified, if it was intended for public consumption, it would have been posted outside the firewall. Désolé


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Oct 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> With DIN access,* have a read of this doc, signed off for the CLS on 19 Oct.
> 
> I suspect the motivation of the budget numbers and slashing Cl B is to.... ahem, _encourage_....Res soldiers with a) Afghan experience, and/or b) productive full-time experience to CT to the RegF -- the former usually being younger soldiers who have 'proven' themselves operationally; the latter often being those pesky, but knowledgeable, annuitants.
> The remainder get to re-enact the 1919 militia.
> ...



And yet...

CTs are closed.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Oct 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> CTs are closed.


....for now -- giving suitable Reservists until 1 April to get appropriately bitter & twisted


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2010)

As you drain all the "experience" and "talent" out of the Reserves, and don't bother to encourage a reverse CT of older Reg Force members to the Reserves to maintain some sort of mentoring of new recruits, what will we have in a couple of years?   The Reserves are seeing their junior officers and MCpls and Sgts CT leaving very little to provide continuity and perpetuate their units.


----------



## pbi (29 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As you drain all the "experience" and "talent" out of the Reserves, and don't bother to encourage a reverse CT of older Reg Force members to the Reserves to maintain some sort of mentoring of new recruits, what will we have in a couple of years?   The Reserves are seeing their junior officers and MCpls and Sgts CT leaving very little to provide continuity and perpetuate their units.



I would submit that there is a considerably higher proportion of RegF annuitants in the Res today than ever before. While I would agree that there are a number serving in B/C posns in jobs that have little do with the Res units directly, IMHO there are also folks on the Armoury floor all across the country who have RegF time.

On releasing from the RegF, everybody is given the option of transferring to the Res: it's part of the release documentation. That said, I'm in the process of transferring from the RegF to the PRes myself, and all I'll say is that it is very, very far from the "seamless" transfer that Gen Hillier once envisioned. I'll get there, I know, but I can see where lots of retiring RegF might just say "***** it" and fade away.

As far as experienced Res joining the RegF: I think this has always been a sore issue (there was a "raiding" about a decade or more ago, IIRC). But what to do about it? If  a Res soldier tries soldiering on a full time basis and decides he likes it, why shouldn't he be able to transfer? He is (in most cases...) a far better prospect than a raw civvy, since he has already proven himself, especially if he has op experience. Lots of people who went on to spend entire careers in the RegF found their taste for Army life on the Armoury floor (me, for one). Will the Res unit ever be able to offer him enoug scope and challenge to do what he wants to do? Or will he hang around the unit for a while, then just fade out? Why stay on the farm team if the big leagues are scouting you? There might not be CT vacancies now, but just wait until the post-Afgh attrition starts to hit the RegF.

On the other hand,  it takes a long time and a lot of effort and leadership for a Res unit to recruit, train and retain a soldiers, especially an Offr/NCO, and to have them disappear into the RegF hurts, badly. If the RegF is too obviously predatory about "body snatching", it will re-ignite old feelings of hatred and mistrust, and we will start to unravel the structure that a lot of good people have worked hard to build up over the last couple of decades. 

As I noted earlier, I lived in the "Bad Old Days" in the Militia (1974-1982) when there was more than enough fear and loahting between the "two armies" to go around; people on Class B were regarded as something akin to "pariahs" or "turncoats" by traditional Reservists, and many people in the RegF would NEVER mention that they had served in the Militia. During my time in the RegF, I saw us evolve away from that to a much more integrated approach. Not perfect, at all, but much better. I don't want to see us go backwards. 

Huge leadership challenges ahead.

Cheers


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2010)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/military-cuts-to-target-reservists-paper-pushers-general-says/article1775604/


> Military cuts to target reservists, paper pushers, general says
> COLIN FREEZE and CAMPBELL CLARK
> Toronto and Ottawa— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> Published Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2010 9:23PM EDT
> ...



So, are the Reserves looking at another layoff this winter\ spring?


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Nov 2010)

So...the reservists who have more than proven their collective weight in blood in combat have to be told "Thanks for your service, now here's the door"?  Disgraceful.

I'm not saying that there is merit in "streamlining" reserve units (eg: amalgamating several units into one larger unit, while retaining regimental identity), but just hacking in the name of efficiency?  

If nothing else, Afghanistan proved to us that we need either (a) a larger Regular Force or (b) a larger Reserve Force that can send highly trained soldiers into combat.  I know what my answer is.


----------



## canada94 (2 Nov 2010)

I don't think cutting Reserve capabilities and numbers would make much of a difference to the current economic strain we currently have, there are PLENTY other ways to save money through cutting useless and ineffective social programs we have in Canada, I'm not saying social programs are all bad/stupid, but some ARE.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Nov 2010)

canada94 said:
			
		

> I don't think cutting Reserve capabilities and numbers would make much of a difference to the current economic strain we currently have, there are PLENTY other ways to save money through cutting useless and ineffective social programs we have in Canada, I'm not saying social programs are all bad/stupid, but some ARE.



Except that those are not within General Leslie's mandate to look at ways to reduce the Defence budget.

From my read of the article, accepting that it probably has as many holes as any other piece of journalism, the initial static targets appear to be redundant base capabilities/establishment (whether that means entire bases or not) and the size of the Class B population (which, admittedly the more recent growth of which is probably mostly formed of people hired to fill holes in the Reg F establishment).


----------



## canada94 (2 Nov 2010)

O'Leary; very true it is not General Leslie's job to mandate social programs, I just think all together limiting Canada's (Res) numbers and base's (if so) is not very appropriate. At a natural disaster prospective if a natural disaster occurs in within reach of bases in the relative area it would make assisting people easier, more bases, more ability but of course more cost.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Nov 2010)

There has been no indicaiton of a desire to reduce the number of Reservists.  There has been expressed an intent to reduce full-time Reserve employment - a radically different notion.

Given the NDA definitions of Regular Force vs Reserve Force (continuing full time service vs other than continuing full-time service), there can be no real surprise that there would be a drawdown of full-time Reservists once the increased demand due to sustained deployed operations has returned to the pre-deployment steady-state (more or less).


----------



## canada94 (2 Nov 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There has been no indicaiton of a desire to reduce the number of Reservists.  There has been expressed an intent to reduce full-time Reserve employment - a radically different notion.
> 
> Given the NDA definitions of Regular Force vs Reserve Force (continuing full time service vs other than continuing full-time service), there can be no real surprise that there would be a drawdown of full-time Reservists once the increased demand due to sustained deployed operations has returned to the pre-deployment steady-state (more or less).



I think General Leslie indicated that all together the numbers have to come down? 

"The Canadian Forces has about 11,200 full-time reservists and another 23,700 part-timers. These “unprecedented” numbers, Lt.-Gen. Leslie said, have to come down." 

Of course I might be misunderstanding this, If anyone can further explain it then please do so.

Mike


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2010)

Of course, when they cut the Class B across the country this time, it would be nice if it was handled equally, including chopping those under a different command filling all the jobs in Ottawa for the mandarins, that didn't get affected the last time.


----------



## from darkness lite (2 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I suspect the motivation of the budget numbers and slashing Cl B is to.... ahem, _encourage_....Res soldiers with a) Afghan experience, and/or b) productive full-time experience to CT to the RegF -- the former usually being younger soldiers who have 'proven' themselves operationally; the latter often being those pesky, but knowledgeable, annuitants.
> The remainder get to re-enact the 1919 militia.



Unfortunately there is really no incentive for many annuitants to CT back to the Regs.  I don't know any who are willing to repay pension payments (my co-worker has been an annuitant for 2 years, thats $45,000 in pension.....


----------



## Journeyman (2 Nov 2010)

from darkness lite said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there is really no little  incentive for many annuitants to CT back to the Regs.


I agree. However, I know of three in Kingston (all Cbt A officers, two of whom had been NCM at one point [if that's a factor] ) who couldn't find work that appealed to them


....or they simply missed TGIF in the Mess with the 'old boys.'


----------



## 54/102 CEF (2 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> With DIN access,* have a read of this doc, signed off for the CLS on 19 Oct.



The letter is decent summary of the above need to cut air breathers

In retrospect one of two things comes to mind

A. the need was funded

B. the need was unforeseen (probably some of each)

If it was funded - no big deal - it parallels increased  funding for other major items for long range deployments (C17) but they always new it had a cap

It could have also been a way to have a stealth Army that was cut back by cutbacks before therise of Afghanistan - to prove this is not the casewe should see how many double dippers helped out along the way by location as well as reserves employed by location

Where are the big cells? True there are lots of reserves in play over these times but they sure arenèt drinking coffee in Ottawa.

So what am I getting at? Only by knowing where the big clusters are can we critique the forces manpower program (all reg and res). I suspect thereès 10 in every res unit = maybe 2000. Where are the rest?


----------



## Haggis (2 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Of course, when they cut the Class B across the country this time, it would be nice if it was handled equally, including chopping those under a different command filling all the jobs in Ottawa for the mandarins, that didn't get affected the last time.



The only Class B's that the Army can cut are those owned by the Army.  There are an awful lot of things that won't get done at NDHQ and, more importantly, elsewhere if this isn't managed properly.  It's imprudent to believe that the Reg F members coming back from Afghanistan can be easily slooted onto an existing Class B position somewhere. 

For example, you have an Army Reserve Sgt RMS Clerk working in a highly specialized position at NDHQ.  The CF has invested several thousand dollars to train that Sgt do do that job and the Sgt has worked there successfully for several years now on Class B, with increases in responsibility and accountability.  You can't just pluck that capability off the Afghan desert and plunk it down in NDHQ and expect everything to function as per SOP.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Nov 2010)

canada94 said:
			
		

> I think General Leslie indicated that all together the numbers have to come down?
> 
> "The Canadian Forces has about 11,200 full-time reservists and another 23,700 part-timers. These “unprecedented” numbers, Lt.-Gen. Leslie said, have to come down."
> 
> ...



You are misunderstanding it.  The cuts are to Cl B's, not to the Cl A.  We are about to return to a Cl A Militia, and that is a good thing.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Nov 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The CF has invested several thousand dollars to train that Sgt do do that job and the Sgt has worked there successfully for several years now on Class B, with increases in responsibility and accountability.  You can't just pluck that capability off the Afghan desert and plunk it down in NDHQ and expect everything to function as per SOP.



The CF career system does that regularly. If you think a few thousand dollars worth of training makes someone "immoveable" you have been living under a rock. I work in a part of the CF where the individual training costs are in the millions and even here, people move on and are not always replaced with someone of similar training and experience ( sometimes, theres no one at all). Things may not function as per SOP at the start but the work can and will get done. No one is irreplaceable.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Nov 2010)

from darkness lite said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there is really no incentive for many annuitants to CT back to the Regs.  I don't know any who are willing to repay pension payments (my co-worker has been an annuitant for 2 years, thats $45,000 in pension.....



Many are nearing CRA and what few years they may have left would really not make much sense to CT back to the Reg Force.   They are probably doing more good mentoring the Reserves.   As for paying back of Pension drawn if one does CT back to the Reg Force, I have been told that this is not necessary, unless of course you are buying back Reserve time which is of course a whole different matter.  You would just stop collecting your Reg Pension and start paying back into it as all Service Members do; no paying back of pension received.  Again, only your Reserve time served would have to be bought back if you wanted it tacked onto your Reg Force Pension when you retire again.


----------



## Haggis (2 Nov 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The CF career system does that regularly. If you think a few thousand dollars worth of training makes someone "immoveable" you have been living under a rock. I work in a part of the CF where the individual training costs are in the millions and even here, people move on and are not always replaced with someone of similar training and experience ( sometimes, theres no one at all). Things may not function as per SOP at the start but the work can and will get done. No one is irreplaceable.



Agreed, but you're missing my point.  It's imprudent to do so, particularly when that "capablility" plucked off the Afghan desert would more properly benefit the field force.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Nov 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Agreed, but you're missing my point.  It's imprudent to do so, particularly when that "capablility" plucked off the Afghan desert would more properly benefit the field force.


Or the training force.  ATCs or even one of the Schools.


----------



## McG (2 Nov 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The only Class B's that the Army can cut are those owned by the Army.


Gen Leslie is working on a CF project.  He will be able to cut the Class B bloat out of regular force establishments across the CF.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> There are an awful lot of things that won't get done at NDHQ and, more importantly, elsewhere if this isn't managed properly.  It's imprudent to believe that the Reg F members coming back from Afghanistan can be easily slooted onto an existing Class B position somewhere.


Of course, there are redundancies, inefficiencies and even superfluous HQs.  There is room for streamlining of the institutional structure in order to find PYs for essential structures and essential work.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Nov 2010)

I remember back in my past........One of my previous employments as a Reservist..........In the '70s........Back then, the big thing was to train the Reserves to a level where they could train themselves and to run themselves.  That can not happen on Class 'A' days.   That would mean more RSS or even another kick at the cat to attempt the 10/90 Bns again.   We have witnessed their failure in the past.  Are we about to try and reinvent a broken wheel?


----------



## Haggis (2 Nov 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Gen Leslie is working on a CF project.  He will be able to cut the Class B bloat out of regular force establishments across the CF.



He will be able to _reccommend_ cuts, in dollars or numbers of personnel.  It will still be up to the L1's (i.e. The Army) to meet the goals set by managing their own priorities.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Of course, there are redundancies, inefficiencies and even superfluous HQs.  There is room for streamlining of the institutional structure in order to find PYs for essential structures and essential work.



Yes, and the fear is - always - that those organizations' survival skills will help them to dodge the brunt of the cuts.

Don't get me wrong.  We need some institutional streamlining.  The Regular Force has become addicted to Class B as a way of filling shortfalls and circumventing the glacial civilian staffing processes in DND.  We just have to be smart and careful about how it's done.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Nov 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We just have to be smart and careful about how it's done.


I think that's the concern; many of us, yourself included, have been around long enough to know that, quite often, that ain't the way it happens


----------



## aesop081 (3 Nov 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Agreed, but you're missing my point.  It's imprudent to do so, particularly when that "capablility" plucked off the Afghan desert would more properly benefit the field force.



Benefiting the field force does not mean employment in the field force only. Imagine what experienced vets could do for the field force if they were working at DLR.......or would taking away the ability to bitch about that organization cause too much trauma for the line guys ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2010)

Take a cup of water out of a pail and it doesn't leave a hole. People retire, quit, get sick and die. I have no sympathy for anyone getting canned just because they are someone's favorite or they believe themselves untouchable. Everyone is replaceable and the pittance, in the great scheme of things, to train a replacement is not an excuse.


----------



## PanaEng (3 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I remember back in my past........One of my previous employments as a Reservist..........In the '70s........Back then, the big thing was to train the Reserves to a level where they could train themselves and to run themselves.  That can not happen on Class 'A' days.   That would mean more RSS or even another kick at the cat to attempt the 10/90 Bns again.   We have witnessed their failure in the past.  Are we about to try and reinvent a broken wheel?


I still think the concept of that "wheel" is still sound and worthwhile; the "wheel" broke because the "spokes" were not well designed. 
How to make the "wheel" and the "spokes" of the 10/90 Bns work? - that, I don't know. (still need more coffee to think straight - had two new Sgt dumped at our mess by the Jr's last night and a new Lt ;-)  )

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Nov 2010)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> How to make the "wheel" and the "spokes" of the 10/90 Bns work?



I think where it went wrong is that the initial common envisioning of the concept was Reserve units receiving enough Reg F staff to form 10% of the unit strength.  What we created was Reg F units manned at 10% which then stripped local Res units to fill the empty 90% of their establishment as needed for exercises, etc.


----------



## Remius (10 Nov 2010)

Last year I went through this.

Was I bitter about it? Yep.  But you have to move on.  Unfortunately my attitude changed though.

All that extra unseen "free" work I did now comes with a pay sheet or I don't do it.  Fan outs, e-mails to troops etc.  It will either happen on paid days or some one full time can do it.  During OP Candence I was asked to fill a position and if I could get time off from my employer.  The answer was a big no.  Did the operation still go on without me?  Of course.  I`m not irreplaceble nor do I think I am but as far as I'm concerned it is someone else's problem.

I'm required to come in one night a week, one weekend a month.  That`s the deal.  And that is what they are getting.


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2010)

In counter to some of the initial panic that PRes establishments are in for a slashing, from CANFORGEN 229/10 :


> 1.  THE LEVEL OF PRIMARY RESERVE EMPLOYMENT HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS WITH GROWTH BEING PRIMARILY DIRECTED TO FULL-TIME (CLASS B AND C) SERVICE TO SUPPORT THE INCREASED OPERATIONAL TEMPO DUE TO TFA, THE INITIAL STAFFING OF NEW CFDS CAPABILITIES AS WELL AS SUPPORT TO KEY EQUIPMENT TRANSITIONS WITHIN AIR COMMAND. THIS LEVEL OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LONG TERM AND NEEDS TO BE RATIONALIZED
> 
> 
> 2.  AT THE SAME TIME, PART-TIME (CLASS A) EMPLOYMENT MUST INCREASE AND OTHER PRIMARY RESERVE FORCE GENERATION REQUIREMENTS (CLASS B(A) AND CLASS B SUMMER TRG REQUIREMENTS) MUST BE PROTECTED IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE EXPANDED PRIMARY RESERVE CAPACITY MANDATED UNDER CFDS
> ...


----------

