# MP getting back to green??



## TheRock198 (19 Jun 2007)

Hey, 

I ear rumours saying that MP are getting back to green in a short while....???  What's that BS....Any infos on that???

We are always the last to know things...


----------



## captjtq (19 Jun 2007)

What do you mean by 'getting back to green'?


----------



## tree hugger (19 Jun 2007)

Meaning no longer a purple trade?


----------



## Dissident (19 Jun 2007)

AFAIK, these are unsubstantiated rumors.

With the RCMP taking laterals, there are a lot of unknowns and a bit of fear. From hearing people talk around here, it often sounds like almost everyone wants to go to the RCMP, so I am sure this is worrying a few people higher up the chain. This doesn't even include all the other police forces who will surely follow suite and also take MP laterally.

The trade is already tight, manning wise. If we loose 400 to laterals, it doesn't leave much of anything. The one solution to this, that almost everyone comes up with is: reg MPs loose the dom policing role and go back to what amounts to the old C pro C, more or less.

Before everyone runs for the hill, I would wait and see what happens with laterals and retention in general. Well, thats easy for me to say, MY job won't change...


----------



## garb811 (20 Jun 2007)

The Retention Working Group only started this week and the CFPM and staff have only just begun to explore the other implications of not only the RCMP issue, but also the high Op Tempo and its impact, along with several other issues, on domestic policing.  The Guardhouses are not/not being shut down (at least not today).

Even if this was true, you would not get a confirmation from anyone in the know on these means, as with the CFPM email, this is a CofC issue due to the impact, not something you're going to get anonymously on the web.

RUMINT on anything related to the future/direction of the Branch over the next few months will get you nothing but an upset feeling and a bunch of grief.  Watch and shoot!


----------



## mover1 (20 Jun 2007)

this note was edited because i was out to lunch in my assumption on the RCMP NOT taking MP's as laterals. 

I was wrong. I took the post off.


----------



## CombatMP265 (21 Jun 2007)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> The Retention Working Group only started this week and the CFPM and staff have only just begun to explore the other implications of not only the RCMP issue, but also the high Op Tempo and its impact, along with several other issues, on domestic policing.  The Guardhouses are not/not being shut down (at least not today).
> 
> Even if this was true, you would not get a confirmation from anyone in the know on these means, as with the CFPM email, this is a CofC issue due to the impact, not something you're going to get anonymously on the web.
> 
> RUMINT on anything related to the future/direction of the Branch over the next few months will get you nothing but an upset feeling and a bunch of grief.  Watch and shoot!


Having talked a bit with those who are currently attending the Retention Working Group myself. I can say that this 'going green' nonsense is just a rumour. As for the number mentioned by *Dissident*, right now the number I've heard being thrown around is more like 100. But even that's a tremendous blow to the branch and just rumours. 

Not to derail the thread, but if the branch does lose a significant amount than who thinks the branch will have to step up its 'Field Capacity' with low level training from the very beginning (for all MP QL3's) in order to further deviate its perceived role as just 'policemen'?


----------



## Dissident (22 Jun 2007)

CombatMP265 said:
			
		

> As for the number mentioned by *Dissident*, right now the number I've heard being thrown around is more like 100.



I pulled 400 out of my ass, as a worst case type of scenario. My extrapolation (which, admittedly might be completely out to lunch) from what I hear from the guys here, make me think that: loosing 100 people to laterals to other police force in the short term, sounds desperately optimistic.

But hey, I'm out of my lane.


----------



## Rowshambow (26 Jun 2007)

Question for you MP's about retention,  Is their any thoughts (from those of you in the know) of going back to how it was a few years ago, and recruit from soldiers that are already serving members (i.e. Inf, Armd, Navy, etc..trained soldiers) I know you still do take them currently, but don't you need some type of Diploma? Now this wouldn't be a problem, but with the current TFA rotos, I know many people who just don't have the time to get schooling? Could going back to that type of recruitment help? I know a few ex CBT Arms guys who are MP's and love it, and from what I hear they are good at their jobs.


----------



## garb811 (27 Jun 2007)

The biggest problem for the Branch regarding this issue is there really is no way to "guesstimate" how many people are going to go.  

Halifax isn't a good example as HRP is tiny (350) compared to the RCMP (24,000) with limited capacity to integrate a surge of laterals but they've managed (or will manage) to take at least 12 MPs from Halifax over the course of about a year.  With about 100 NCMs in Halifax, that's an attrition rate of around 12%, extrapolate that to the entire Branch which has 1150 NCMs (plus or minus) and that'd be 137, already 1/3 more than the Branch appears to be planning for.  Throw in 10% "normal" attrition and you're looking at about 250 guys gone in a year.  Even if you dropped "normal" attrition to 5% to cover off the guys who went RCMP who were gong to leave anyway and the number is still bad, with 195 guys gone in a year.

The biggest problem between trying to guesstimate the number using Halifax as an example is it's really trying to compare apples and oranges in many respects.  Unlike Halifax, the RCMP has the size to take as many MPs as want to go without seriously impacting their current operations because these aren't positions coming vacant over the next year, the positions are vacant NOW.  Similarly, while Halifax is attractive to MPs who are under the 10 year mark, it isn't all that attractive to many MPs over 10 due to pension whereas a MP can roll his pension over into the RCMP pension.  Similarly, unless you want to spend the rest of your life in Halifax (or are planning yet another lateral transfer down the road) there isn't much sense in going to HRP, whereas with the RCMP you can end up almost anywhere your heart desires...

Not that I want to be a doom and gloom guy as I love my trade but I concur with Dissident, 100 is probably going to be well below the number who actually go in relation to this.  My SWAG at the number is in the vicinity of 300-350 guys over the course of 2 years over and above regular attrition and it could snowball even worse depending to how the Branch and CF reacts.  I also suspect the Branch is going to be losing people at ranks they aren't even worried about at this point; I already know several of my peers who although "old" are still young enough to have a second career in policing and are giving this serious consideration.



			
				CombatMP265 said:
			
		

> Not to derail the thread, but if the branch does lose a significant amount than who thinks the branch will have to step up its 'Field Capacity' with low level training from the very beginning (for all MP QL3's) in order to further deviate its perceived role as just 'policemen'?


Sorry, not quite following what you mean here, do you mean just go to a Mobilizatin scenario and train some Reg Force MPs for Field Ops only in the short term...?    ???

Rowshambow:  Been awhile since I checked but as far as I know OTs don't need a full diploma, just a few credits in appropriate subjects.  You are right though, given Op Tempo even this is hard for many to obtain.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (5 Jul 2007)

I'm new to the branch (as in not even trained yet), but I do have 10 1/2 years in the CF, and I've found the idea of loosing a significant number of people in the trade an interesting one.  

My first trade in the CF (NESOP) was one that typically was considered a "red" trade and was often significantly under staffed.  As a way to deal with the problem they gave the members spec pay.  This pay off has seemed to work, however since the MP NCM's already get spec pay this is not necessarily enough incentive to keep them around.  

One of the best officers in the CF that I have had the pleasure to serve with once said to me "What is your goal?  My job as your boss is to ensure that you get to your goal.  In return, you do the best job possible for me which makes our unit run well, and provides me with a good evaluation"  This whole idea seemed so simple, yet so perfect.  

As a future manager in the branch, if people working with me wanted a life outside of the CF and had desired to work for a civilian force, I would do my best to support them and help them with their goal.  Will this hurt the branch?  Yes, it likely would hurt in the short run however, if these people want out and don't want a life in the CF than I'd rather they leave.  There are people who believe in the work we do, and want a career working in the CF and are not merely using it as a stepping stone.  This is not to say that those looking to leave have not done a good job or were poor members of the CF but consider this, if you're always dreaming about what is on the other side of the fence how can you possibly be doing the best job in your own yard and at the same time be happy with it.  

I see the future of our retention issues as being to be able to find a way to increase job satisfaction, and to provide for opportunities where people can be challenged and given a chance for self promotion.  Ultimately, if you are happy where you are, and in what you are doing, you won't need to look elsewhere.  

For those who choose to leave - good luck, and for those looking for a career in the CF - welcome.


----------



## Dissident (5 Jul 2007)

You are in for a tough reality check.


----------



## FastEddy (5 Jul 2007)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> I'm new to the branch (as in not even trained yet), but I do have 10 1/2 years in the CF.
> 
> I see the future of our retention issues as being to be able to find a way to increase job satisfaction, and to provide for opportunities where people can be challenged and given a chance for self promotion.  Ultimately, if you are happy where you are, and in what you are doing, you won't need to look elsewhere.
> 
> For those who choose to leave - good luck, and for those looking for a career in the CF - welcome.




I couldn't agree more with "Dissident". I would agree that your sentiments are in the right place, but, are you in for a few surprises.

I'm afraid your outlook is almost tantamount to wearing rose colored glasses. (theres nothing wrong with that I suppose).

But I find it interesting that a Member with your Service, should now wish to transfer to the MP. Any hints ?.

Cheers.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (5 Jul 2007)

I don't think that I'm fooling myself as to the challenges that face the branch in the future wrt attrition, I just don't see the point in trying to devise a way to keep people who don't want to be here.  

A better solution would be to answer the question "why do they want to leave", and to see if you can accommodate their needs professionally.  

All I'm suggesting is that I'd rather be short staffed with people around me who want to do the job, then to be surrounded by people who are looking to leave.  I don't think this is a rose coloured vision.  

Let me open this question up to the board to see where it goes:  If you are considering leaving, why and is there a change that could be made that would have you consider staying? 

As to FastEddy's question as to why the MP's with my background, because I like the diversity that the branch has to offer.  I can work in operations at a guard house, perhaps investigations at another det., do a turn helping to write policy that will shape the future of the branch, or work doing CI or C-HUMINT.  I also appreciate what the CF offers as an employer.  I've worked civi side (not as a police officer), and from my experience there I can truly appreciate the comforts we are afforded.


----------



## FastEddy (5 Jul 2007)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> I don't think that I'm fooling myself as to the challenges that face the branch in the future wrt attrition, I just don't see the point in trying to devise a way to keep people who don't want to be here.
> 
> A better solution would be to answer the question "why do they want to leave", and to see if you can accommodate their needs professionally.
> 
> ...




I'm sure that the MP are flattered to hear that there is so much diversity in their Branch, as for the other Branch's, I'm not quite sure.

I'm also sure that practically all of our Armed Forces are now and before are aware of the Benefits that a career in them offer.

As for the reasoning for your Branch Transfer. I find you seem to have a fixation on "Comfort" & "Cushy".
I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth concerning Law Enforcement and the MP.

As for your aspirations to be instrumental in revolutionary changes, good luck .

You seem to have omitted one very important statement or reason, "We all wanted to be LEO's", for those with a passion for the Military Life, the Military Police, was like having your cake and eating it !. You might be a late bloomer, but forgive me if I have my reservations on that matter.

Cheers.


----------



## garb811 (5 Jul 2007)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> Let me open this question up to the board to see where it goes:  If you are considering leaving, why and is there a change that could be made that would have you consider staying?


That's the million dollar question that the Branch just spent considerable time, effort and money in trying to figure out.  Unfortunately I think the process was flawed in many ways and the Headshed didn't get a complete picture of the problem except for perhaps junior members of the Branch because of the method by which the survey was administered and the questions which were asked.

Having been giving this issue some thought even prior to the announcement as I've been on the 30/30 plan for awhile now, there are a bunch of current dissatisfiers in *my* career, none of which I suspect the Branch is going to try to address in the ongoing RWG.  I also highly suspect that the "fixes" to come are only going to make matters worse from my perspective, but this certainly isn't the place to air my dirty laundry.  

The biggest problems facing the Branch have been building since the FRP/SIU stand down fiasco, Samson's move to being and recruiting "cops" vice "MPs" and the subsequent recruiting incentives to achieve this without implementing any kind of concurrent retention incentives/initiatives.  There will be no quick fixes, particularly since the powers that be refuse to even acknowledge the concerns of the 20+ crowd with their fixation on appeasing the 10- crowd.  As I said previously, possibly in another thread, depending on how this issue is handled, the Branch could find itself short not only Jr NCOs but also those at the WOs and Sgt ranks.  This would be a huge problem as although you can crisis manage by robbing Peter to pay Paul while you get a Cpl on the road in a year, it takes considerably longer than that to get someone with the training and experience to properly supervise them and run a Guardhouse/NIS Det etc etc.  Even without the RCMP issue the Branch was heading for a trainwreck as 7 year Sgts became the norm vice the very rare exception as the 20+ year guys left and the insta-Cpls went through the gate at the minimum times required in rank.


----------



## QV (7 Jul 2007)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> That's the million dollar question



IMHO I don't think Spec Pay 2, 3 or 23 would change the minds of most people set to get out.  I believe all the things that need to change are the things that will never change.  Just to give you an example:  I work shift work, so I am working at a minimum of 12 hours at a stretch for 4 to 5 days in a row, alternating between day shifts and night shifts.  At least 2 or 3 times a month I have to stay a couple of hours over time.  In the last month I have been called in twice after trying to sleep after my night shift.  Once that block of shifts end I should (by the schedule) have 4 to 5 days off until my next block starts. 

However here is a list of typical things I am scheduled (ordered) to do on my "days off" in this last month anyway:

Range day X 2
UOF re-qual - 3 days
Fire extinguisher famil  (stupid stupid stupid)
Court X 2 days
PSO qual 1 day  (I am not even deployable - just got back from a'stan)
NBCD re-qual - 1 day

There isn't a lot of time left in the month to spend with my family, house chores, vehicle maintanence...ect.

Now lets add in the deployments, TAVs (6 to 10 'week' long Tavs a year), field excercises (3 a year) and courses like PLQ, invest, accident investigator...ect..

And then consider this:
We don't get compensated for stat holidays
We don't get long weekends (unless you are a day worker)
We don't get paid for overtime or working on our days off but we DO get called in frequently
We don't get days off in lieu of the days they make us work when we are supposed to be off.
We don't get shift premium pay or shift differential pay
We don't get stood down early like the rest of the base on Fridays - ever 

And some particular stuff that pertains to my unit (and hopefully only my unit)
-We don't get to apply for two short (only our CWO does - leading by example as usual)
-We don't get to regularly take holidays in the spring, summer or fall (leave passes cancelled routinely) and then we get in shit for having too much annual holidays left by January... which results in everyone having to burn off leave in the worst month of the year.
-I was lucky enough to swindle my way into having a bit more then a week off a little while ago and the god damned office called my house everyday for 5 days in a row - and NO I don't have any outstanding files on the go.  I didn't answer the phone.  I still don't know what they called for.


So those are *some* of the things that will push a lot of people out.  The RCMP and muni police forces properly compensate their members where the MP branch does not.  That is a huge thing when you consider the quality of life differences between MP and civilian police.  Where the MP branch does not have to pay overtime or credit time off for working on your days off - this calling people in to work when they should be off gets severely abused because no one is held accountable.  So with respect to retention we will see what happens over the next little while.


----------



## FastEddy (7 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> IMHO I don't think Spec Pay 2, 3 or 23 would change the minds of most people set to get out.  I believe all the things that need to change are the things that will never change.  Just to give you an example:  I work shift work, so I am working at a minimum of 12 hours at a stretch for 4 to 5 days in a row, alternating between day shifts and night shifts.  At least 2 or 3 times a month I have to stay a couple of hours over time.  In the last month I have been called in twice after trying to sleep after my night shift.  Once that block of shifts end I should (by the schedule) have 4 to 5 days off until my next block starts.
> 
> However here is a list of typical things I am scheduled (ordered) to do on my "days off" in this last month anyway:
> 
> ...




Well that should answere a few of "SweetNavyJustice" points on all of the MP Diversification.

There's no doubt in my mind that the above conditions exist at your Unit, (And God only knows at how many other).

Compared to you, Civi PD's are a Club Med. lol.

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> However here is a list of typical things I am scheduled (ordered) to do on my "days off" in this last month anyway:
> 
> Range day X 2
> UOF re-qual - 3 days
> ...



QV, if it makes you feel better, its the same way for me


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (7 Jul 2007)

Great post QV!

As someone just coming into the branch it's important for me to hear what it is like, and the problems that people are facing especially as it pertains to keeping people happy with their careers.  

I've talked to a number of MP's who never even see their officers unless it's when their coming to work in the morning, or heading home.  

How to solve people being overworked when we're facing ever increasing staff shortages is definitely a valid concern.  

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## Meridian (7 Jul 2007)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> Great post QV!
> 
> As someone just coming into the branch it's important for me to hear what it is like, and the problems that people are facing especially as it pertains to keeping people happy with their careers.
> 
> ...




Interestingly enough, I had originally considered a career as an MP, however was denied due to having a CV3... prevents me from working Civy PD as well... too bad, my dream job.  If only it wasn't genetic.

In any event, I worked a lot of security jobs when I was younger, bouncing, etc.  I grew up in Ottawa, which *seems* to have a preponderance of wannabe cops everywhere you turn.  As a result, I know a -lot- of wannabe cops... (ie more than 10), and even a few more that have become police officers.

I know that particularly in Ottawa, OPS has an "unwritten policy" that applicants under 25 get the "lack life experience" statement. Diversity ratios also make it very competitive, and with Ottawa's low low crime rae, sexy uniforms (I'm not joking, applicants have told me this), and relatively good working conditions, its near impossible to get into OPS.

This *seems* (this is by no means a scientific research endeavour of mine) to mean that all of these wannabes either apply 5 times to OPS, OPP, and RCMP, get routinely denied and told to reapply later, and then either run off to "in-need" forces such as Peel or York Regional, or consider the Forces.

Almost every MP or guy I knew applying to be an MP or considering such a thing was applying to be able to get Peace Officer status in order to be able to transfer out and have a "good foot in" at other forces like Edmonton, OPS, OPP or RCMP.  None of them expressed verbally any type of desire to remain in the Forces career-wise. All of them wanted to get the status, get the experience, and then work civilian.

Now, clearly this does not mean that there are not career-ist CF MPs. It just means that everyone I've ever known who has ever considered or become an MP in the forces has ultimately done so to get in and get out. 

Can't be an easy battle to overcome for the Branch!


----------



## QV (8 Jul 2007)

Don't get me wrong about my last post.  I like my job... but holy f*** they need to get a grip and tone down the BS taskings and courses and manage the patrol units a lot better then they are.  When I go to work I do the best job I can, but I have a life and want to live it outside of work as well.  Granted the current op tempo coupled with the short staffing doesn't help, but it will only get worse as people leave faster then they are recruited.  

I hope to hell the brass wizards in the puzzle palace come up with some major changes, but I am not holding my breath.


----------



## Rowshambow (8 Jul 2007)

QV it's the same around the Forces, when I left the Strats, we were doing back to back to back to back TFA tours, with not near enough manpower, and still getting boned with menial tasks. We also could put down for short days, but it had to go through the CO and very rarely was ok'd. The unit I am at now is pretty much the same, not enough people for the tasks. Thats a problem we face in Alberta, too many high paying jobs out here, where you do get overtime, double time stat holidays etc...I guess it's the nature of the beast with the job that we do.


----------



## garb811 (8 Jul 2007)

QV:  Not that it's going to make you feel any better but those are the same issues we had when I was a patrolman oh so many years ago but, believe it or not, things have gotten better, particularly in the realm of OT due to paperwork, although I readily admit that the current Op Tempo is putting stresses on the Branch which we never experienced.  

I hate to sound callous but the whole OT pay issue is a red herring as everyone who comes in should be fully aware of the fact that we don't get OT and that's an issue the whole CF bears so don't expect a lot of gratification to be coming regarding that.  There are many ways your supervisors should be able to mitigate this for you though, but given the "unit specific" problems you bring up, I suspect that just isn't happening...


----------



## QV (8 Jul 2007)

I only posted that post in response to this below:



			
				SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> Let me open this question up to the board to see where it goes:  If you are considering leaving, why and is there a change that could be made that would have you consider staying?



Those points I made are IMHO some of the reasons why people will get out.  Of course I realize that OT will not be paid in the CF... but when everywhere else you look OT is paid - that in itself is attractive to potential applicants.  I also find that because a unit doesn't have to kick out double bubble or is not compelled to compensate its members with time off you get people in leadership positions that abuse this OT thing.  It is abused at my location and every one at the worker bee level resents the unit and its management because of it.  And every single one  of them is keeping their ear to the ground for a better job/life.  They may not all leave but a good many will.  Something has to be wrong with our system if the majority of people (in my org) are looking for another job and don't want to make a career in the CF.  A guy I know just came back from his QL5 course - a Maj asked his whole class who would leave if offered a job by a municipal force - the whole class raised their hand.  Is that a problem?  Oh yeah.  Is the root of the problem with all those QL5 students or is the problem rooted in the system?  That is an easy answer.

And its not just the new guys or the guys with over 20 either....I have over 10 years and under 20 in and even I am considering leaving.... even though I only have a short time to go to be pensioned off.  Same with several (but not all) of my peers.   

The MP branch is going to have its work cut out for them and it will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## noneck (8 Jul 2007)

Meridian-

" Interestingly enough, I had originally considered a career as an MP, however was denied due to having a CV3... prevents me from working Civy PD as well... too bad, my dream job.  If only it wasn't genetic."

Just a question, you mentioned colour blindness. Did you merely do the Ishihara test or did you do a Farnsworth D-15 ? I  tank the Ishihara tests (genetics), but pass the Farnsworth with no problems. The Farnsworth is the definitive test for most police agencies, however it is not always offered or even mentioned in LEO applications.


----------



## Meridian (8 Jul 2007)

noneck said:
			
		

> Meridian-
> 
> " Interestingly enough, I had originally considered a career as an MP, however was denied due to having a CV3... prevents me from working Civy PD as well... too bad, my dream job.  If only it wasn't genetic."
> 
> Just a question, you mentioned colour blindness. Did you merely do the Ishihara test or did you do a Farnsworth D-15 ? I  tank the Ishihara tests (genetics), but pass the Farnsworth with no problems. The Farnsworth is the definitive test for most police agencies, however it is not always offered or even mentioned in LEO applications.



Being CV3, I believe I've failed both.  I was given first the "numbers" test, and then the pastels test.  (Don't know which is which honestly).  I know OPS states there is testing - since Medical is usually far along the application trail, I didn't ever both start a civy LEO application....


----------



## garb811 (13 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Is the root of the problem with all those QL5 students or is the problem rooted in the system?  That is an easy answer.



I personally don't think the answer is as easy as you think.  

While there are a huge number of issues within the Branch (leadership, communication, Op Tempo, compensation, equipment, postings...yadayada) which are directly contributing to the current issues, an even bigger problem was sitting in the chairs of that classroom.  When I read the results of the Retention Survey and see that people want overtime (did they not read the contract and do their research prior to signing?) and think we aren't fairly compensated for the work that we do, that people think the Branch is currently too "Mp" (snarf!  You should have seen it when I joined! and I personally think the Branch is still too "mP"), that a dissatisfier is something as stupid as a raincoat and that current work-up training is too long (never mind those pesky "soldier skills" could save your life and that of your buddy), it simply reinforces in my mind that the Branch has been in the business of recruiting cops vice MPs for the last number of years and the chickens have finally come home to roost.

We only developed a recruiting and serious retention problem as a result of PMS taking the Branch down the current road we are on, using the fallout from Somalia to justify moving to a Branch heavily weighted towards dometic police ops at the expense of everything else, although ironically Arone and the other detainee issues were a direct result of a lack of Field MP support on the Op, not the Branch falling down on Police Ops.  While part of this was a noble idea (gunning for Spec Pay, developing and implementing professional standards, getting control of selection of MPs) much of it was due to her obsession to obtain "professional acknowledgement" as a "law enforcement agency" from civie forces and her hatred of anything "Army" (never mind she then proceeded to wrap her office in the trappings of the CProC) and SIU.  By insisting on a Diploma and restricting the intake of OTs after the Branch was gutted during FRP and the subsequent recruiting freeze due to being overborne at every rank, the Branch set itself up for the current problem by effectively "losing" 3-5 years of recruiting off the street while it flopped around trying to figure out how to actually recruit someone with a diploma, revalidate the CTS and CTPs in light of the fact everyone was now supposed to have a previous "police" edumication and then determine what was required to run a MPAC and who should actually run it.  I am still unconvinced that our insistence that recruits have a 2 year Law and Security Diploma has done anything but weaken the Branch by severely limiting the pool of available recruits from which to choose which directly led to the requirement to implement recruiting incentives.  I am also unconvinced that our recruiting incentives have attracted a higher caliber of recruit than we otherwise would have from that already limited pool (although it did artificially inflate the numbers with those loyal for the Queens shilling vice being loyal to the institution), because anyone with any brains would not fall for the higher pay over the short term when any advantage in the first three years has been eaten up by the end of the fifth (not counting overtime).  

I'm not saying "my" Branch didn't have problems, as it did, nor am I saying that none of my peers jumped to civie forces or other jobs at some point (7 of 24 on my 3s are still in though) but on the other hand, we all knew on entry that there was more to the trade than riding around in a little black patrol car (although we had 1 or 2 who still deluded themselves but 6 guys went direct to MP Pls...without complaint) and all of us were aware of the fact that we would be paid substantially less than our civie counterparts and that we wouldn't get overtime even though we could count on being in on uncompensated days off several times per month to type letter perfect 245s on typewriters to meet the 7 day window.  What we did have though, was people who (for the most part) wanted to do time in the Military as Police, people who didn't have a huge chip on their shoulder thinking they were more special then their non-MP peers because of a piece of parchment which brings no special recognition from any civilian agency, a wad of cash and an instant promotion and perhaps most importantly, we had diversity of background.  At most we had 3 guys who had any kind of previous Law and Security education, although we did have a few ex-floor walkers, plus a partial University degree, a few ex-Reserve MPs, a carpenter, a taxi driver...check out todays MP recruits and the biggest difference is probably going to be whether someone worked at McDonalds or Burger King during high school.  That may sound like a non-issue but the Branch is slowly bleeding a lot of "non-police" talent as the older guys with diverse backgrounds leave and that is talent and experience that the Branch can't buy.

So, what's my fix?  Simple, baby out with the bathwater.  Aim to recruit the folks who want to be Military Police and not simply Police.  Dump the requirement for a Law and Security Diploma and open us up to all comers off the street.  We now have MPAC in place to ensure we get the candidates we think will make good MPs so we'll still screen out most of the thuds prior to them hitting Borden.  On MPAC, stop pulling punches about us being Military Police and trying to sidestep anything which isn't directly related to law enforcement.  Stop sugar coating the field side by calling it "Supporting CF missions around the world, by providing policing and operational support" and "Coordinating tasks related to persons held in custody (including military detainees and prisoners of war)", lay it out there for everyone to see and call a spade a spade.  Get a Jeep Team down from the closest MP Pl to do a dog and pony, get the local security surveyor to do a 20 min spiel on what it is they do and why it is a vital function for the Military, make sure the escort MPs are not loaded up only with guys from busy "police" bases to ensure that candidates have an overall picture of what the AVERAGE MP does, not just the high speed, low drag busy base "cops".  Also, get MPOs out of the MPAC for NCMs.  It never fails to amaze me that many most MPOs think they have a better understanding of what it takes to make a good MP than senior MPs do, even though most have never done our job.  Even the CFRs/SCPs/UTPNCM ones have been out of the business for so long that they need to take a step back.

I sincerely believe the RCMP lateral issue has simply accelerated the process of bringing the Branch to a crisis and is a godsend in a way because it is forcing the Branch to address the issues now rather than later.

/herein ends yet another long winded rant. ;D


----------



## Inspir (13 Jul 2007)

MP00161 for CFPM  ;D

I remember my dad telling me almost the same thing when I told him I was thinking about going MP. 

MP00161 you wouldn't know a FORTIER would you?


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2007)

MP 00161 you write well and your loyalty for the branch is admirable but...

The reality is that the CF MP branch is competing against civilian agencies for recruits and also to retain it's current members.  If the MP branch is losing more people then it is recruiting and retaining then the MP branch is NOT doing what it can to be an employer of choice.  That is the reality.  If the branch chooses to not fix its many problems, then so be it.  Some will stay many will leave.  But more people will join eventually - with most of them eventually moving on as well.  And so it goes. 

Like CF doctors and pilots, MPs have skills that are in demand elsewhere.  Like it or not this is what the branch is competing against as far as money is concerned (rough figures):

Civvie cop                                             Military cop
1st Class Pay  ~$70,000/yr                     4th yr Cpl  ~$60,000/yr
Over time Pay   ~$15,000/yr                   On duty 24/7 - no extra pay  
Court Pay                                                                                         
Stat holiday pay                                     
Shift differential pay                                
Compensated Time Off
Paid training days


Probably in another 5 or 6 years the civilian police force's thirst for recruits will be satisfied and demand won't be so high.  

As far as the whole Mp vs mP and the "back when I got in..." debate goes - it is getting old.  For MPs the old days of blind loyalty and obedience are over.  In the infantry when a Section Commander orders a soldier to assault a trench - blind obedience is necessary... the battle must be won.  In the MP branch when a supervisor orders another MP to arrest and jail someone.... that arrest better be lawful because there really is only one guy that will take the fall if its not, and that is the junior MP that "was just doing what was ordered".  Well that junior MP must know the law and know his job because following an order just because some senior guy said so doesn't cut it in todays world of lawsuits and cut throats.... if that senior guy even admits to the order!!!  

I find that blaming all the new guys for everything that is wrong is something that old "dinosaurs" are adept at.... constantly reminiscing of days gone by and how things should never have changed or moved forward with the times.   By the way, most of my peers are very near to being pensionable...they aren't planning on staying in the branch and hoping to shape and change it and advance thru to WO, MWO or CWO ranks... and serving 30 or 35 years.... they are counting the days till they can get the heck out.   So it aint just the new guys.


----------



## FastEddy (14 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> MP 00161 you write well and your loyalty for the branch is admirable but...




Yes but what your really saying is "Bull Sh.." MP 00161" you don.t know what your taking about.

While trying to contain the temptation to use language that would illustrate my feeling on your post and that it would be frowned upon by this Forum, I'll simply put it to you,

What qualifies you to comment or be a Authority on the MP or C Pro C, your Profile certainly doesn't indicate that.

Has keeping up with the times, other than Technically and Scientifically really made the World a better place and has it not contributed to the Mess the CF's in general are in, especially the MP Branch.

Yes "MP 00161" you do write very well and very forthcoming. And I feel that you were not blaming the New or Old Guys, just the System which created this mess and which "QV" suggests we even embrace further as a solution.


----------



## garb811 (14 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> MP 00161 you write well and your loyalty for the branch is admirable but...


Thanks but saying that rant proves my loyalty to the Branch makes me think you didn't read it very carefully.



> Like it or not this is what the branch is competing against as far as money is concerned...


You're right the Branch can't compete money wise and this is something the Branch has publicly known since 2004 when a QL6B syndicate compiled and presented a service paper to the CFPM on this very topic (although you can't tell me that the headshed had any delusions about the reality of the situation from the moment the policy went into effect) but people need to get through their head that it *NEVER* will be able to compete money wise which is why the whole recruiting incentive initiative got us to the problem we're now facing.  Recently people have not been joining to be MPs, they joined to make a quick buck while trying to get onto a civie force.  Like I said, this isn't a new phenomenon but the fact that we limited our potential recruit pool to only those who wanted to be "cops" has increased the problem exponentially because whereas before probably 1 in 5 wanted to be a cop at any cost, that ratio has risen to almost 1 in 1 for the newer recruits and it is certainly going to make life interesting over the next couple of years.  People who are demanding more money at base pay, overtime, compensated time off, court pay, shift differential etc are just deluding themselves, there is *no way* it is ever going to happen simply because what we do is not so "special" that it can't be done by anyone else and there is no mechanism in place within the CF pay system to give NCMs any incentives other than spec pay, unless they were to introduce a "MP Allowance" which would complete the process of alienating the Branch from the rest of the CF.  Other trades do shift work, other trades face mandatory training on days off, other trades work stat holidays, other trades go on exercise and tasks for a hell of a lot longer than most MPs ever will, but none of them get any additional compensation for any of that over and above what is currently provided for in CBIs.  If people keep insisting money is the only thing which is going to solve the problems instead of looking at other ways to sell the benefits of our Branch, the Branch *will* collapse due to attrition, it will have the domestic policing task stripped from it and it *will* revert to the role of Provosts with the primary tasks of providing security services and support to Ops.

What I do find amazing is while everyone is able and more than willing to quote chapter and verse the cash in hand aspects of jumping to a civie force and how bad it sucks to be us, no-one is overly keen to bring up issues such as annual leave amounts (you realize there are civie forces which won't let you take annual leave your first year?), sick leave, dedicated medical and dental care, geographic mobility (nationally and internationally), access to "perks" such as service flights at Christmas and space available basis, short and special leave, SCAN, CFCEP, SLT, Adventure Training, CCMs, Compassionate Postings, free access to Rec facilities, Base clubs, MFRC, Canex, Messes, free or low cost use of facilities for personal functions, CF sports programs at the regional, national and international levels, low cost life insurance, access to low interest loans, free access to financial advisers...need I go on?  



> Probably in another 5 or 6 years the civilian police force's thirst for recruits will be satisfied and demand won't be so high.


 
This problem isn't going away, particularly if the Branch continues to demand recruits have the diploma. 



> As far as the whole Mp vs mP and the "back when I got in..." debate goes - it is getting old.


You're right, there should never be any kind of argument of whether we are mP or Mp, the simple fact is we are MP; military personnel who have been given unique authority to conduct certain duties.  Just because we are MPs doesn't mean we stop being soldiers, sailors and air...errr...persons and become "different" or "better" than anyone else in the CF, able to ignore the fact that we are still required to conduct our duties in a professional, *military*, manner.



> For MPs the old days of blind loyalty and obedience are over.


Word up, the days of blind loyalty an obedience have been over for at least 20 years.  The big thing that has changed though is the ability of junior personnel to be able to discern when it is appropriate to analyse and challenge direction from their superiors.  There still are times when a MP just needs to suck it up and get on with the task at hand, no matter what they may think of it or the direction they've been given.  At the end of the day, EVERYONE in the CF must be able to figure out what is and is not a lawful order and respond accordingly, this isn't something only MPs have to deal with.  



> I find that blaming all the new guys for everything that is wrong is something that old "dinosaurs" are adept at....


Well, now we know what you think I am, thanks for being up front about it but, as FastEddy pointed out, reread my rant and see where I am laying the blame for the current situation.  The new guys are merely the symptom, not the cause, although many of them behave and carry on in the manner of coddled, spoiled brats who have been recruited to "save the Branch", which disgusts me to no end.



> By the way, most of my peers are very near to being pensionable...they aren't planning on staying in the branch and hoping to shape and change it and advance thru to WO, MWO or CWO ranks... and serving 30 or 35 years.... they are counting the days till they can get the heck out.   So it ain't just the new guys.


This is not something you and your peers invented, it has been happening ever since the concept of the immediate annuity came out.  Many of my peers who stayed into their IE left at 20, most of us who are still in are here simply because we still enjoy the career and the possibilities it holds.  I, and my peers, are also watching the current developments with interest and if any of us do decide to go to pursue a second career in policing, we will hardly be the first to do so, I know at least one ex-MWO and several ex-WOs and Sgts who are out there doing the job while also collecting their pension.  Do not delude yourself about the ability of WOs, MWOs and CWOs to shape and change the Branch.  If you do stay in and advance you will soon recognize where the power to do that is held, and it is not in the hands of us simple, uneducated and misdirected NCMs, that is reserved for those at the heady rank of LCol and up.

Finally, think back to why it was YOU joined the MPs then take a look at most new MPs coming in.  If you see yourself in them you honestly have to ask yourself why it was you stuck it out for as long as you have.  I personally didn't join to be a "cop", I joined the CF to be a soldier who was privileged to be a "MP" knowing full well what that entailed, pros and cons, and I don't regret it for an instant because I've led a life I never would have led if I had gone to a civie force when I had the chance many years ago, and so has my family.


----------



## garb811 (14 Jul 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> What qualifies you to comment or be a Authority on the MP or C Pro C, your Profile certainly doesn't indicate that.


His profile *is* lean but he certainly is qualified to comment and debate.


----------



## QV (14 Jul 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Yes but what your really saying is "Bull Sh.." MP 00161" you don.t know what your taking about.
> 
> While trying to contain the temptation to use language that would illustrate my feeling on your post and that it would be frowned upon by this Forum, I'll simply put it to you,
> 
> ...



You are getting a little heated for nothing Fast Eddy.  My opinion is mine.  I don't think that the CF is a mess like you suggest.  As a matter of fact I think that the CF is arguably better equipped, trained and combat experienced today then it has been in the last 10 or 20 years.  And if you have read and understood anything I have posted you would see that I am hardly embracing the MP "system" as you suggest.  I think there needs to be sweeping changes to the system.  Did I touch a nerve with my post?  Don't answer that.   :skull:

I will need a little more time to reply to MP 00161 though... ;D


----------



## WATCHDOG75 (12 Sep 2007)

Wow some interesting posts here. You all have made some valid arguments.  I agree with QV in that the CF is better trained , equipped and of course more combat capable than in the recent past.  The same can be said about the MP Branch. As I have stated before we(Branch) have gone from the Flintstones to the Jetsones in a very short time.  The same arguments concerning MP vs CIV POL were taking place since I can remember back in the 70's.  From what I have seen and heard I think we need to do away with this requirement of pre-qualification for new recruits but keep the MPAC.   I also believe we should place more emphasis on remuster(or what ever it is called today) to keep the trade full.  Just my opinion.


----------

