# Recruitment Allowances for Understrength Military Occupations Aug 2008



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

CANFORGEN 146/08 CMP 059/08 061550Z AUG 08
RECRUITMENT ALLOWANCES FOR UNDERSTRENGTH MILITARY OCCUPATIONS
UNCLASSIFIED
REFS: A. CANFORGEN 164/06 CMP 079 031116Z NOV 06 
B. CBI 205.525 
C. TB DECISION NO 832770, 22 JUN 06 
D. CDS LETTER DATED 28 JUL 08 

THIS CANFORGEN SUPERCEDES REF A AND CONTAINS THE REVISED LIST OF OCCUPATIONS FOR WHICH RECRUITMENT ALLOWANCES _*MAY*_ BE PROVIDED TO ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS ENTERING THE REGULAR FORCE. 

THE ALLOWANCES AND CONDITIONS OF ENTITLEMENT ARE AS SET OUT IN REF B, WHICH IS AMENDED PURSUANT TO REF C 

THE CURRENT UNDERSTRENGTH MILITARY OCCUPATION LIST (REF D), EFFECTIVE 1 AUGUST 08, INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING OCCUPATIONS: 

NE TECH (A) 00116 
NE TECH (C) 00117 
NE TECH (T) 00118
SIG OP 00329 
MRAD TECH 00153 
BE TECH 00155 
INT OP 00099 
SONAR OP 00324 
VEH TECH 00129 
MLAB 00152 
LCIS TECH 00110 
AC OP 00337 
ATIS TECH 00109 
AVN TECH 00135 
EGS TECH 00303 
NAV COMM 00299 
NES OP 00115 
NW TECH 00017 
DENT TECH 00335 
MED TECH 00334
MED 00196 
PHARM 00194 

NOTE THAT MERE POSSESSION OF A CERTAIN TRADE OR ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN APPLICANT MEETS CF REQUIREMENTS. EACH APPLICANT FILE WILL BE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE CURRENCY OF THE PERTINENT SKILLS OR ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCY. 

* For those of you entering the Recruiting Process, the BEST place for you to address questions for whether you qualify for these recruitment allowances is the CFRC.


----------



## CountDC (20 Aug 2008)

like the way you highlight the word may.

Now why is RMS Clk not on that list - we have been understrength since day one and it sure would be nice to get more in to take some of the work load.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> like the way you highlight the word may.



Unfortunately many will not see that and their eyes will translate it into "will" or "shall".  



> Now why is RMS Clk not on that list - we have been understrength since day one and it sure would be nice to get more in to take some of the work load.



Its probably someone in your Career Mangler's shops idea of "job protection"  ;D


----------



## eurowing (20 Aug 2008)

It would be nice to see "retention" allowances, that might stop the bleeding.


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Aug 2008)

Euro, Why do that when a qual'd person can release, re sign and then get 10-20 grand.  :

Good old CF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Euro, Why do that when a qual'd person can release, re sign and then get 10-20 grand.  :
> 
> Good old CF.



True but that does create some issues for them.  There is no quaruntee they will get back in, they then have broken service, etc.

However, from a taxpayers point of view, part of me says that its less expensive to re-sign that Cpl who is a Widget Tech and give him/her $10-20k than it is to recruit and then train someone off the street (sometimes 2 years in the trng system) to then have an Apprentice level tech/operator without the experience the re-signed mbr would have.


----------



## CountDC (20 Aug 2008)

the question of retention allowance came up a few years back at a briefing held in Halifax.  Can't remember who was there but it was some chiefs and at least one high rank officer.  The answer as I saw it boiled down to we pay you $50k a year for 20 years why should we pay you more to stay in?


----------



## 421_434_226 (20 Aug 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Euro, Why do that when a qual'd person can release, re sign and then get 10-20 grand.  :
> 
> Good old CF.



I believe that the last time this was done a former member would have had to been out of the service for a min of 2 years before the allowance could be applied.


----------



## pfl (20 Aug 2008)

I see AVN-TECH but not AVS, why? I mean its probably as simple an answer as "they have enough recruits already" but is there really that much of a gap between the two trades?


----------



## dimsum (20 Aug 2008)

Strange.  There's always talk of not having enough MARS officers to go around but they're never on the "understrength" scale...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

pfl said:
			
		

> I see AVN-TECH but not AVS, why? I mean its probably as simple an answer as "they have enough recruits already" but is there really that much of a gap between the two trades?



Recruiting Allowances are driven by Health of trades.  2 key terms used in this are PML (Preferred Manning Level) and TES (Trained Effective Strength) numbers.  PML represents how many mbrs the CF says its needs in a trade, TES is the actual number of people in the trade that have reached what is called the OFP (Occupation Function Point), the point of training in a trade/MOC that the mbr is considered trained and employable, and it varies for each trade and for Officer and NCM trades.

Health of trades is defined as Green (less than 5% below PML and up) Amber (10% - 5% below PML) and Red (greater than 10% below PML).  

The DMCARM ISS Occupation Status Matrix for this FY lists AVN as a Red trade, and I would have to verify but I believe AVS is Green, perhaps Amber.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Strange.  There's always talk of not having enough MARS officers to go around but they're never on the "understrength" scale...



I wonder what the PML and TES #s are like for MARS...I did notice, when I first read this CAONFORGEN that only Med and Pharm occupations are listed for Officers.  Pure speculation but maybe they reached other "quotas" in the CEOTP, UTPNCM and CFR programs?


----------



## navy-nesop (20 Aug 2008)

I almost choked on my food when I saw this message.

I re-enrolled in 2007.  Was a NESOP before, QL5 qualified.  I rejoined as a NESOP again thinking it would accelerate some parts along the way.  God was I wrong.  Had to do my QL3 again, NETP and next would be QL4 in March.  Only got 56 days credit.  Asked for a formal review from CFRG, denied because I add 10 years between service.

Good thing is as an AB I got an awesome PDR saying I was doing the job of a senior LS...lol.

Mind you, it's all good.  Still loves the job and the friends.

I can't see how any civilian experience would apply to trades like NESOP or NCIOP.  You have to be out for 2 years before you can get this allowance, but after 3 you loose your military quals...maybe they have other ways to see it.


----------



## Occam (20 Aug 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> The answer as I saw it boiled down to we pay you $50k a year for 20 years why should we pay you more to stay in?



Perhaps because people with 20+ years of experience in a skilled trade generally make more than $50k per year?  (In some cases, a lot more).

Until the brass realizes that, the bleeding will continue.


----------



## Greymatters (20 Aug 2008)

I didnt see this question posted - is the number afterwards refering to the number of open positions?


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Aug 2008)

I think it's the new MOSID system as opposed to the old MOC or whatever e.g. 031 went to 00010


----------



## Ammo (20 Aug 2008)

think it's the new MOSID system as opposed to the old MOC or whatever e.g. 031 went to 00010 

It is the new MOSID. Check out the following topic:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/987.0.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

I just noticed that ATIS Tech is listed as an understrength MOC, but I know the DMCARM Occ Status lists ATIS as a green trade.  If I think of it tomorrow, I'll get all the trade health info from the ISS site and listed them alongside the indicated MOCs.


----------



## WaitingTime (20 Aug 2008)

I am not sure how many MARS officers make it past their QL4 and on, but I don't think CF has as big a problem recruiting MARS officers as some other trade.  Last NOAB, as far as I know 19 got the offer for MARS.  Getting through the training system probably is more of a hurdle than recruiting for MARS, although the number of recruits is most likely still lower than what CF would like to see.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

WaitingTime said:
			
		

> I am not sure how many MARS officers make it past their QL4 and on, but I don't think CF has as big a problem recruiting MARS officers as some other trade.  Last NOAB, as far as I know 19 got the offer for MARS.  Getting through the training system probably is more of a hurdle than recruiting for MARS, although the number of recruits is most likely still lower than what CF would like to see.



I don't believe MARS have a "QL4" per se, someone will name the correct term for you though.


----------



## dimsum (20 Aug 2008)

WaitingTime said:
			
		

> I am not sure how many MARS officers make it past their QL4 and on



Just an aside:  MARS officers (or any other officer, for that matter) go through the "QL" system.  MARS officers go through IAP/BOTP, NETPO, MARS 3 and MARS 4.  

...back on topic...


----------



## WaitingTime (20 Aug 2008)

sorry, I meant MARS IV


----------



## WaitingTime (20 Aug 2008)

on another note, there is no more recruiting allowances for the NCS eng and MS eng in the navy as of the end of last fiscal year, i.e., MAR 08.  Kind of funny that those two occupations are still understrength.  Last NOAB, there were like 3-4 NCS eng candidate and maybe 1-2 MS eng candidate.  I seem to recall 25 spaces for NCS eng this year.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2008)

Before we go much further, we should take a closer look at Ref B:



> CANFORGEN 146/08 CMP 059/08 061550Z AUG 08
> RECRUITMENT ALLOWANCES FOR UNDERSTRENGTH MILITARY OCCUPATIONS
> UNCLASSIFIED
> REFS: A. CANFORGEN 164/06 CMP 079 031116Z NOV 06
> ...




Comments like this are just out of ignorance:



			
				popnfresh said:
			
		

> Euro, Why do that when a qual'd person can release, re sign and then get 10-20 grand.  :
> 
> Good old CF.



It is more cost effective to offer a "Retention/Re-engagement" Bonus than to go through the expense of letting a member resign from the Forces, loosing all Security Clearances, turning in Kit, etc.  The incentives shouldn't be to bring in people off the street, but to keep the highly skilled people you already have.


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Aug 2008)

This is going to be way out in left field, but how about recruitment bonuses for COTP trades?   Perhaps this would increase the number of applicants to choose from.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2008)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> This is going to be way out in left field, but how about recruitment bonuses for COTP trades?   Perhaps this would increase the number of applicants to choose from.



These are "Recruitment" bonuses.  If you are already in the CF, you are not being "recruited".  If you meet the criteria laid out in Reference B, you may be able to go through a "Grievance Process" and be credited the qualifications.  Remember, they are looking for "qualified" people in those Trades, not Recruits/OTs that they have to train.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

In a way, you are recruited into a 'remuster only' MOC, granted you apply, and have to jump the hoops but maybe this would attract a few more folks.  Make it a remuster trade recruitment incentive that you get once you reach OFP in the COTP MOC.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In a way, you are recruited into a 'remuster only' MOC, granted you apply, and have to jump the hoops but maybe this would attract a few more folks.  Make it a remuster trade recruitment incentive that you get once you reach OFP in the COTP MOC.




Again, there is NO BONUS if the person does not meet the Criteria laid out in REFERENCE B.  I have seen several people CT into the Regular Force and stay in their Trade, one of which is listed in this CANFORGEN.  Those who met the criteria maintained their rank and got a bonus; those who didn't meet the criteria came in as Pte (T) on OJT and NO BONUS.  This is a bonus for "FULLY TRAINED and QUALIFIED" pers.  It is not a OT bonus.  They want TRAINED people.

AGAIN:  Criteria for the Bonus is laid out in Ref B.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

We get that...I think what we are talking about is extending the current way of doing business.  if it is being done to recruit people who met the criteria for service, why not extend it to the people who meet the criteria for COTP IAW CFAO 11-12 to increase the # of applicants.


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Aug 2008)

That's exactly what I am talking about, not every COTP trade is bursting with applicants, if there was some financial incentive perhaps there might be more files to choose from. 

I am well aware of what the message for understrength trades states.   Although there still has to be some training involved you can't bring in some I.T. Super Hero off the street and make him a Navcomm, they will still have to do the QL3 and everything else that comes with it.  I doubt there are people walking the streets who have Vol II cased or are fleet maneuvering gods.   So they are not saving any money on the training aspect.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We get that...I think what we are talking about is extending the current way of doing business.  if it is being done to recruit people who met the criteria for service, why not extend it to the people who meet the criteria for COTP IAW CFAO 11-12 to increase the # of applicants.



'Because they don't meet the criteria laid out in Ref B, while the people that they are recruiting do.  As I said, it is a method to get "Trained" pers and not have to spend time and money to send them through the Training System to become "Qualified".  Who is the "Target Audience" then?  Trained (in that particular Trade) Reservists, or former members are the Target Audience.

Don't suggest changes to this Bonus.  Scrap it if you must, but then you'll not attract the young Reservist who has the same qualifications as his Regular Force brother.  Instead, also propose bonuses to keep trained people in their Trades, as opposed to letting them Release.  These are two completely different approaches to offering a Bonus to pers.   The offer of Spec Pay to more Trades may be yet another approach.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2008)

For the "Curious", the Ref B contains the fol text (only a portion printed):




> The Forces are seeking personnel with skill sets that meet current CF requirements in these understrength occupations and others. However, the fact that you possess a certain trade or academic qualification does not necessarily mean that you will meet those requirements. Your file will be reviewed to determine the currency of your pertinent skills or academic qualifications and competency.
> 
> Re-enrolling personnel who left the CF with advanced occupation skills in a military occupation that has since undergone significant changes may find that their previous qualifications are no longer valid. These personnel are not eligible to receive a recruiting allowance.
> 
> ...



You can find the dated version of this at        http://www.dnd.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/1_07/1_07_cfpn_recruit-allowances_e.asp


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 'Because they don't meet the criteria laid out in Ref B,



So it would be a case of amending Reb B then.



> while the people that they are recruiting do.  As I said, it is a method to get "Trained" pers and not have to spend time and money to send them through the Training System to become "Qualified".  Who is the "Target Audience" then?  Trained (in that particular Trade) Reservists, or former members are the Target Audience.
> 
> Don't suggest changes to this Bonus.  Scrap it if you must, but then you'll not attract the young Reservist who has the same qualifications as his Regular Force brother.  Instead, also propose bonuses to keep trained people in their Trades, as opposed to letting them Release.  These are two completely different approaches to offering a Bonus to pers.   The offer of Spec Pay to more Trades may be yet another approach.



All of these 'understrength trades' are far less below PML than the one I was offered via COTP, AES Op, which is, according to the ISS site, more than 20% below PML.  If we are waving cash around in the tune of $20k to get a 'trained' person into the AVN Tech MOC, how can you argue NOT doing the same to get people into AES Op, which is PML/TES numbers wise, in rougher shape?  The ONLY people who can get into AES Op are trained personnel, who meet the requirements of:

VOLUNTARY OT -GENERAL15.    Members applying for transfer under any of the voluntary OT programs
must meet the following prerequisites:
     a.   minimum time prerequisites applicable to the OT program being
          considered, excluding LWOP (Leave Without Pay) granted on
          enrolment;

     b.   MOC selection standards, detailed in the Canadian Forces Manual
          of NCM Occupation Structure (A-PD-123);

     c.   language aptitude and proficiency standards;

     d.   MOC medical standards specified in A-MD-154-000/FP-000;

     e.   QL 4 qualification.

     f.   Only Ptes and Cpls and those MCpls and above who are prepared to
          relinquish their appointment or rank may apply for voluntary OT.

AES Op is feeder trade dependent; at this time there is no other way to get people into this MOC.  It is hurting % wise worse than AVN Tech, who if you meet the requirements, you get back in with your bonus, your spec pay, rank and pensionable time bought back.  But, the CF should not offer a bonus to attract a mbr who meets the eligibility requirements for COTP, to entice them into a remuster?

I understand what you are saying George, I am hoping you can elaborate as to your reasoning, and why this is such a great idea to get people into understrength trades EXCEPT remuster only understrength trades.

I applied for, and was selected for AES Op via COTP.  My motivations were never based on a bonus, I will not be getting one.  I won't get spec pay for a very long time, if I pass BAC and OTU/MOAT.  I am not debating this as someone who would benefit from it financially.  I do think, knowing the state of the trade that I am entering, that it might help entice some people into this trade, the same as the CF is hoping to do with the list of understrength trades in the aforementioned CANFORGEN.

I use AES Op as an example, because I am the most familiar with it.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So it would be a case of amending Reb B then.



NO!  The CF comes up with another form of incentive that is more appropriate to current "Serving Members".  




			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> All of these 'understrength trades' are far less below PML than the one I was offered via COTP, AES Op, which is, according to the ISS site, more than 20% below PML.  If we are waving cash around in the tune of $20k to get a 'trained' person into the AVN Tech MOC, how can you argue NOT doing the same to get people into AES Op, which is PML/TES numbers wise, in rougher shape?  The ONLY people who can get into AES Op are trained personnel, who meet the requirements of:
> 
> VOLUNTARY OT -GENERAL15.    Members applying for transfer under any of the voluntary OT programs
> must meet the following prerequisites:
> ...



YOU STILL ARE MISSING THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE ALLOWANCE!  It is designed to bring in "Fully Trained" pers.  The savings of not having to train them exceeds the amount that is being paid out in Allowances.  AS I SAID it is targeted at Reservists who have the Qualifications required, and former Service Members who also are current in the Trade; NOT towards people who require training.







			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> AES Op is feeder trade dependent; at this time there is no other way to get people into this MOC.  It is hurting % wise worse than AVN Tech, who if you meet the requirements, you get back in with your bonus, your spec pay, rank and pensionable time bought back.  But, the CF should not offer a bonus to attract a mbr who meets the eligibility requirements for COTP, to entice them into a remuster?



This is a result of decisions made by CMs in the Trades and the forcasts that they have made, and if they have the money in their Budgets to do so.  As was mentioned in a previous post about a Navy Trade, some old "POs" shot this idea down, due to archaic thinking or not understanding the idea behind it, or both.




			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying George, I am hoping you can elaborate as to your reasoning, and why this is such a great idea to get people into understrength trades EXCEPT remuster only understrength trades.



Again, I'll stress; it is all geared towards a Targeted group: fully trained Reservists and former Service Pers who are still current in their Trade.  The motive is to save money by not having to send them through the Training System and being able to employ them immediately on enrolment.





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I applied for, and was selected for AES Op via COTP.  My motivations were never based on a bonus, I will not be getting one.  I won't get spec pay for a very long time, if I pass BAC and OTU/MOAT.  I am not debating this as someone who would benefit from it financially.  I do think, knowing the state of the trade that I am entering, that it might help entice some people into this trade, the same as the CF is hoping to do with the list of understrength trades in the aforementioned CANFORGEN.
> 
> I use AES Op as an example, because I am the most familiar with it.



First off, you were Armd, and in doing you CT, you also did an OT.  You were not qualified in the Trade you were entering into.  Had you been qualified as an AES Op, as a Reservist (Not that that is possible), you would probably been eligible for this Allowance.  Had you also done a Tour, as a Reservist AES Op, that would have probably sealed the deal, with you keeping your rank, and if you were a MCpl or Sgt, you may have even been given the MCpl appointment as well.  

As you did not meet the criteria and needed to be TRAINED as an AES Op, then you did not qualify for a bonus on entry into the Trade.

It is that simple...........If you required to be trained, you do not get the bonus.

As I have said, I know several who have joined and stayed in the same Trade, going from Reserve to Regular Force, and those who met the criteria got the bonus and kept their rank, those who did not meet the criteria lost their rank, bonus, and were put on OJT to make up for their short comings.  The ones on OJT, even after being additionally trained, still did not qualify for a bonus after being brought up to the "same" level as the others.

These Allowances are a huge savings to the CF.  It is cheaper than bringing in a person off the street, or an OT, and putting them through a Training facility to qualify them in a Trade.  The idea is to bring in people who are ALREADY trained in their Trade.  Why duplicate the time and expense of training them all over again?  Post them to a Unit and put them to work immediately.

If you want to suggest a Bonus or Allowance for people who OT to a Trade, then that is a whole different matter, and one for the CMs and Ottawa to look into, especially if it could be applied towards "Retention" of CF Members, and a means of taking the load off the Recruiting System.  Again, as such, this is nothing to do with these Recruiting Allowances.


----------



## CountDC (21 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> NO!  The CF comes up with another form of incentive that is more appropriate to current "Serving Members".


I have to agree with Eye in the Sky - why come up with another incentive when there is a perfectly good one in place just needing a little fine tuning. We are not referring to a retention allowance - we are talking about a small change to this making it applicable to feeder trades that require you to be already in. IE mbrs doing an OT to a trade that only accepts currently serving members may qualify for the allowance if they have the required skill sets to meet current CF requirements for that trade. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> YOU STILL ARE MISSING THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE ALLOWANCE!  It is designed to bring in "Fully Trained" pers.  The savings of not having to train them exceeds the amount that is being paid out in Allowances.  AS I SAID it is targeted at Reservists who have the Qualifications required, and former Service Members who also are current in the Trade; NOT towards people who require training.



Where do you get this ?? No where in the allowance policy does it say this - in fact it refers to civilian qualifications that are easily converted to military equivalents. MPs was one that mbrs holding their papers from the school in PEI that the RCMP used would qual for the bonus - no military experience required. It is not targeted at reserve or former members - it is targeted at anyone that has a certain skill set that is required - your local mechanic with absolutely no military experience could qual under veh tech if they meet the requirement set out for that trade. They still do basic training ,when completed basic they are given their QL level determined and may even be given rank. When my brother, a mechanic, completed basic he was promoted to Cpl on grad parade and was granted his 5's. We had MPs in Halifax that had enrolled, received their first portion of the allowance while at Basic, then a year after enrolment came to see us in the pay office for their second half. As far as fully trained - they are not fully trained if they have to do basic training.




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is a result of decisions made by CMs in the Trades and the forcasts that they have made, and if they have the money in their Budgets to do so.  As was mentioned in a previous post about a Navy Trade, some old "POs" shot this idea down, due to archaic thinking or not understanding the idea behind it, or both.



Not to be too picky but POs, regardless of how old, do not set military policy and thus, although they may not agree with it,  could not have "shot this idea down".



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Again, I'll stress; it is all geared towards a Targeted group: fully trained Reservists and former Service Pers who are still current in their Trade.  The motive is to save money by not having to send them through the Training System and being able to employ them immediately on enrolment.


again - where do you get this info?  Your targeted group info is wrong as I already stated above.  The motive is not to save money - the motive is to encourage enrolment into trades that they are having trouble getting new recruits into.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Eye in the Sky - why come up with another incentive when there is a perfectly good one in place just needing a little fine tuning. We are not referring to a retention allowance - we are talking about a small change to this making it applicable to feeder trades that require you to be already in. IE mbrs doing an OT to a trade that only accepts currently serving members may qualify for the allowance if they have the required skill sets to meet current CF requirements for that trade.



Once again, because you are talking about two different things; Recruiting and Retention.  The CF needs to look at other means (bonuses) to encourage trained pers to reengage, even OT.  To change a "RECRUITING" Allowance to include "Serving Members" creates too many loopholes and legalities that can create chaos in the Recruiting, Training and other systems opening the doors for abuse.  Remember, this current RA states that although you possess a certain trade or academic qualification, it does not necessarily mean that you will meet the requirements of that Trade, even if you are Re-enrolling with advanced occupational skills.  If those occupations have seen significant changes since the member left, and their qualifications are no longer valid, then they are not eligible.  Your points about OTs are moot/irrelevant in this matter.  

In the end it is going to boil down to the Individual, the Branch/Trade, and the equivalencies offered.  So far we have been too general in our discussion and wound around the axles over semantics.  It is stated right at the beginning of Ref B:


> The Forces are seeking personnel with skill sets that meet current CF requirements in these understrength occupations and others. However, the fact that you possess a certain trade or academic qualification does not necessarily mean that you will meet those requirements. Your file will be reviewed to determine the currency of your pertinent skills or academic qualifications and competency.
> 
> Re-enrolling personnel who left the CF with advanced occupation skills in a military occupation that has since undergone significant changes may find that their previous qualifications are no longer valid. These personnel are not eligible to receive a recruiting allowance.



As an example, if you are a Trained Crewman, you still will not meet the criteria required for AES Op, no matter what program you want to enter as, and therefore not entitled to the RA.  

So once again, in the end it is going to boil down to the Individual, the Branch/Trade they are entering, and the equivalencies offered.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Aug 2008)

George,

First, I don't agree that the idea of trying to draw more people into remuster-only MOCs is a 'retention' issue, as the mbrs OTing under COTP are not thinking of releasing, rather OTing into remuster-only MOCs which must go thru the COTP IAW CFA0 11-12 and ADM (HR-MIL) Inst 05/05.   The CMs for remuster MOCs have to recruit applicants from the Reg Force NCM world.

Just so all are clear WRT to my situation, I actually remustered from Armour to ATIS Tech, where I was given a trng bypass due to education and experience.  It was after I was already at the OFP for ATIS (Reg Force) that I applied for COTP to AES Op, where I met the requirements of CFA0 11-12 for Occupational Transfer for Reg Frce NCMs.  That might make more sense, however I realize it does not apply to our dicussion WRT to 'incentives'.  I just thought it key to clear up what I CTd into, and what I am now OTing into.

So as you can see, I didn't benefit from the now-existant Recruiting Incentive that ATIS is listed as part of in the CANFORGEN, although I did a CT/OT and entered as Skilled and at the OFP for ATIS Tech.  If the current policy was amended to include serving mbrs and COTP into understrength remuster-only MOCs, or a new policy was created, I would not benefit financially from that either as I have already received and accepted my OT from ATIS to AES Op.  Whats the point?  My arguments are coming from the 'betterment of the CF' perspective, not one in which I personally would stand to make any financial gain from, regardless.  

In the end, I see what you are saying about the current incentives and how they are administered and granted, but I still think it could be extended to attract current serving members into remuster only trades, and would like to present 1 argument/point as to why it might work.

Lets say you have a AVN Tech MCpl, who is making top incentive/spec 1 pay.  He/she is married with 2 kids, and a wife/husband that works part time, or not at all.  If the mbr remusters, they will drop down to Cpl, Standard, IPC 4.  Using the 01 Apr 08 pay rates, that is a difference in pay of $802 a month.  That financial barrier alone may be a deciding factor in the mbr deciding to OT to AES Op or Flt Engr, both Red trades that are feeder trade dependent.  

My point then would be regardless of whether the current 'incentives program' is extended, or a new one put in place, which seems to be what we are tussling over here.

My thought is:  If the CF can do this to recruit into understrength occupations from the PRes or re-enrolling mbrs that are immediately employable with little or no training, perhaps they should do the same thing with the remuster only MOCs that are equally or in some cases more understrength than the ones listed in the CANFORGEN.  

Finally...from this link:

re·cruit   
re·cruit·ed, re·cruit·ing, re·cruits 

To engage (persons) for military service. 
To strengthen or raise (an armed force) by enlistment. 
To supply with new members or employees. 
To enroll or seek to enroll: colleges recruiting minority students. 
*To replenish*. 
*To renew or restore the health, vitality, or intensity of*.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Lets say you have a AVN Tech MCpl, who is making top incentive/spec 1 pay.  He/she is married with 2 kids, and a wife/husband that works part time, or not at all.  If the mbr remusters, they will drop down to Cpl, Standard, IPC 4.  Using the 01 Apr 08 pay rates, that is a difference in pay of $802 a month.  That financial barrier alone may be a deciding factor in the mbr deciding to OT to AES Op or Flt Engr, both Red trades that are feeder trade dependent.



The problem isn't as simple as you suggest.  





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Remember, this current RA states that although you possess a certain trade or academic qualification, it does not necessarily mean that you will meet the requirements of that Trade, even if you are Re-enrolling with advanced occupational skills.  If those occupations have seen significant changes since the member left, and their qualifications are no longer valid, then they are not eligible.



If your AVN Tech MCpl had taken time off to get the proper credentials at a College or University and become certified as an AES Op or Flt Engr, then she MIGHT be eligible for the RA.





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> My point then would be regardless of whether the current 'incentives program' is extended, or a new one put in place, which seems to be what we are tussling over here.
> 
> My thought is:  If the CF can do this to recruit into understrength occupations from the PRes or re-enrolling mbrs that are immediately employable with little or no training, perhaps they should do the same thing with the remuster only MOCs that are equally or in some cases more understrength than the ones listed in the CANFORGEN.



Again, if a member is to spend out of pocket the money, and has been able to get the time to acquire a Certification that will be useful in a Trade that offers a RA and is accepted for an OT, then maybe/perhaps they may be eligible for the RA.   Remember, the RA is not guaranteed.

The question in reference to your suggestions of giving this to OTs, and I believe that in the first few lines of Ref B it hints at that (see below), is when and how do they get the Certification that will qualify them for the RA?  Where do they get the time off, and out of whose pocket does this education cost come from?  The CF will not pay a mbr twice to get an education and Trade.  If a mbr is getting an Education Reimbursement to study to become a Flt Engr, then why should the CF then give him a RA when he OTs to Flt Engr?  Where did the mbr get the time off to study for this Certification?  Was he paid on that time off?  There are a lot of factors involved with the OT getting the RA that you are arguing for.


.......if you are a former member of the CF re-enrolling in the Regular Force, or a serving Regular Force member seeking a new career within the CF, you may also be eligible for an RA.

Remember this though:

.......However, the fact that you possess a certain trade or academic qualification does not necessarily mean that you will meet those requirements. Your file will be reviewed to determine the currency of your pertinent skills or academic qualifications and competency.

Re-enrolling personnel who left the CF with advanced occupation skills in a military occupation that has since undergone significant changes may find that their previous qualifications are no longer valid. These personnel are not eligible to receive a recruiting allowance.

In the end, this is why I am saying it is more or less targeted at the Reservist, or a recently Released Service Member.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In the end, this is why I am saying it is more or less targeted at the Reservist, or a recently Released Service Member.



I completely agree.

I am also suggesting we do something likewise for the understrength remuster only MOCs, but not IAW Ref B.   ;D


----------



## CountDC (21 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> *Once again, because you are talking about two different things; Recruiting and Retention.*  The CF needs to look at other means (bonuses) to encourage trained pers to reengage, even OT.  To change a "RECRUITING" Allowance to include "Serving Members" creates too many loopholes and legalities that can create chaos in the Recruiting, Training and other systems opening the doors for abuse.  Remember, this current RA states that although you possess a certain trade or academic qualification, it does not necessarily mean that you will meet the requirements of that Trade, even if you are Re-enrolling with advanced occupational skills.  If those occupations have seen significant changes since the member left, and their qualifications are no longer valid, then they are not eligible.  Your points about OTs are moot/irrelevant in this matter.
> 
> In the end it is going to boil down to the Individual, the Branch/Trade, and the equivalencies offered.  So far we have been too general in our discussion and wound around the axles over semantics.  It is stated right at the beginning of Ref B:
> As an example, if you are a Trained Crewman, you still will not meet the criteria required for AES Op, no matter what program you want to enter as, and therefore not entitled to the RA.
> ...



no - same thing - recruiting - just in one case we are recruiting from outside the Reg F while in the other we are recruiting from within the Reg F. As the trade only recruits from inside then the recruitment allowance could be made applicable to them with a minor change along what I already stated.
There would only be a small percentage that would qualify as most would not meet the qual requirements but it is possible that some would. 

we can even take it outside the "feeder trade" and expand it to all trades understrength recruiting from inside the Reg F.  Using a co-worker from 12 years ago as an example - he was in the Reg F as an RMS Clk but held electrician papers and continued to work at it on his own time. If the allowance was opened up to electricians for CE then why not give it to him as a qualified electrician. Especially makes sense if the object was to save time and money as he is fully qualified military and trade so is ready to go from day one.

Retention allowance would be applicable to retaining members currently in the Reg F in their current trade after a set number of years. Using myself as an example - RMS is understrength (just never makes the list), in 2 years I have 25 to retire as an IA. Rather than lose another person with 25 years experience in an understrength trade the military could offer a retention allowance to get me to stay another 5 years.

I do not see any loopholes or legalities to be taken advantage of - it is a small change saying currently serving mbrs of the Reg F may qualify if they meet the same standard as everyone else.


----------



## willellis (29 Jan 2010)

Hey folks, just wondering if there is a more up-to-date list kicking around.


----------



## Occam (29 Jan 2010)

willellis said:
			
		

> Hey folks, just wondering if there is a more up-to-date list kicking around.



There sure is.  I'm sure a Recruiting Centre would be more than happy to share it with you.

Seriously, the list is a living document.  You always want that sort of info right from the source, so don't rely on any information you get here.  You don't know for certain how old the information is, so why trust an anonymous soul on the internet?


----------



## willellis (29 Jan 2010)

Good call. I wasn't sure if it was just a temp offer. Thanks a lot.


----------

