# Forces will face an exodus of experienced personnel ..



## Col.Steiner (23 Oct 2007)

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/maritimes/story.html?id=90cbbca3-923a-48f4-95d8-6d7ead6c4c9f&p=2

I just read in the Montreal Gazette an article on the growing attrition rates in the forces due presumably to the war in Afghanistan (first I have heard of this). As well, the above link, refers the baby boomers retiring from the services very shortly, which will no doubt leave the forces in the lurch, despite the recruiting objectives being made successfully so far. 
These articles, like most articles in papers, make me wonder if they think they are fooling all or some of the people or just those people that they need to eg. the general population.
As anyone who has quit the forces and wished to rejoin, or those already in the reserves who want to go full time, this can prove to an extremely frustrating experience akin to banging ones head on a wall. It is far easier to com off the street and join than to rejoin. To wrap what I am saying in a nutshell, bullshit! I know from personal experience how long and how many flaming hoops I have had to endure since I decided a few years back that I wanted to rejoin. I wasn't taking the reserves too seriously but I did enjoy the experience immensely, unfortunately it just got in the way of my masters program, which I gave preference to. After a few years of maturing and a nice degree under my belt, I made an informed decision involving family and friends and most difficultly, my wife, to rejoin. 
Well things didn't go as smoothly as I would have hoped; I flew out of the country to teach English in a very nonthreatening country security-wise, and I fell into the 'out of the country for more than 6 months in the last ten years' clause, and I was immediately brushed into the chasm of self doubt and a two year waiting time for a mysterious 'pre-sec', which I still am in the dark about -who is doing what with my file right now? And you certainly cannot phone this person up to see what's up so far. I guess they have to take security seriously, but 2 years? Really? Are they that busy that they can't make it a priority to fast-track people like me who want to join and have proven it by waiting years for the privilege to rejoin? If I can see it through the eyes of a recruiter I would see an individual who has toughed it out for a few years, spent copious amounts of time and energy in doing the steps it took to get himself to this point, and above all, a mature person who was already in the forces, and made a choice to come back a little older and a little more wise. A person who has had so many file bungles such as I had (my file had sat on some dud's desk who retired the day I gave it to him, so it say there collecting dust while I thought it was in the hands of of those we no nothing about - CSIS? That took 4 months added to my up to 2 year wait. Then the file was misfile again for 3 months but that wasn't explained to me despite my best efforts) All this in the real world would clearly show a person who would most likely stay the course, as he has been through it before and knows what awaits of him. I wouldn't let this son of a be-ach go, I would kiss his arse and do whatever it took to keep him interested and motivated to stay the course of this idiotic and overly bureaucratic jumbled mess of a mystery called the pre-security check. 
But that isn't the case, and I seriously wouldn't expect it from them, but that is what you would get from a private firm who wanted you as badly as the forces needs soldiers. I guess to sum up what I am saying is that there is a lot of hot air but no real and defined effort to solve the problems that the forces are facing. I can understand the long wait for an individual who may be from a country of concern, such as Iran, but for a white-bread, born in farmtown/hockeytown Peterborough, I just don't get the intense scrutiny. The right people seem to know the problems, but are they able to do anything about them?


----------



## Greymatters (23 Oct 2007)

You sound like you will make a great addition to the CF - youve got the 'bitching' part down pat!   ;D

Seriously, its not an easy road for everyone, all you can do is keep dogging them and dont let them forget youre interested...


----------



## Col.Steiner (23 Oct 2007)

Yes, I suppose I couldn't avoid a 'bitchy' tone, as the post was intended to illustrate my situation ans I assume many others who have gone through the same. When I see all the articles in the media about conscripts attrition and baby-boomers retiring soon, I just can't help feeling a little outraged. I want to scream and shot and say 'hey what about me?' (that sounds like a beginning of a cheesy song, sorry). Problems keeping soldiers  +  baby boomers (skilled personnel) leaving should = speeding up some of the bullsh1t redtape and get the men into the boots faster. How many recruits say to hell with the process and give up because of this kind of bumbling, recruits that very possibly may have been excellent additions to the forces? The forces is moaning about these problems but are not doing anything about them, this bureaucratic quagmire is a Canadian staple throughout all levels of government and should be severed!


----------



## Shamrock (23 Oct 2007)

OberstSteiner said:
			
		

> How many recruits say to hell with the process and give up because of this kind of bumbling, recruits that very possibly may have been excellent additions to the forces?



The problem extends beyond retention, it also includes (1) training the influx of new troops (or lack of facilities for training) and (2) preventing the mass exodus from occuring in another 25 years -- that means staggering recruit intakes.  

Baby boomers are yesterday's problem.  Today's problem is impetuous youth demanding instant gratification.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2007)

OberstSteiner said:
			
		

> . When I see all the articles in the media about conscripts attrition



Get the facts straight.  Ther are no conscripts in the Canadian military.

Words have meanings.  Clear meanings.  So educate yourself first, then open your mouth.


----------



## Doom (23 Oct 2007)

yea, i'd have to agree with dapaterson. from my knowledge there is no conscripts.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Oct 2007)

OberstSteiner said:
			
		

> I just read in the Montreal Gazette an article on the growing attrition rates in the forces due presumably to the war in Afghanistan.



Hmmm, how about as a result of the recruiting surge of the early 80s?  While some like to imagine a steady level of recruitments and releases each year, that is not reflected in relity.  And each recruiting surge will naturally be followed 20-25 years later with increased numbers of releases.  There's no mystery here, no matter what conspiracy a reporter may wish to imagine.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2007)

How dare you employ common sense and logic?  Next you'll suggest that the lack of recruiting in the 90s, to make force reduction targets, is what's leading to the shortfalls in mid-level ranks today.


----------



## Haggis (23 Oct 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How dare you employ common sense and logic?  Next you'll suggest that the lack of recruiting in the 90s, to make force reduction targets, is what's leading to the shortfalls in mid-level ranks today.



Whoa... watch your tone, dapaterson.  You're slagging the Liberals here. FRP was their baby and, by God, it worked!!!

You should have a better outlook than that.  You know darned well that if you're not part of the solution then... well.... you'll be blamed for the problem.


----------



## Greymatters (23 Oct 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How dare you employ common sense and logic?  Next you'll suggest that the lack of recruiting in the 90s, to make force reduction targets, is what's leading to the shortfalls in mid-level ranks today.



There are some out there who still think that was a good idea...    :


----------



## a78jumper (23 Oct 2007)

I suggest they are already facing a severe shortage.

Although the military has made great strides in improving their people skills and bennies, they are still lacking sorely in this area. Aside from a sense of duty and love for country why put up with the crappola? My days were numbered the day my career mangler told me the CF "owned me". Ignorant twit, my crime apparently was being too honest wrt my future plans beyond the age of 37.


----------



## Col.Steiner (26 Oct 2007)

Sorry about that last post, I was hopped up on NyQuil and out of control! Never post under the influence! I just saw it now and I cringed at the spelling errors and other mistakes, besides the tone!


----------



## 3VP Highlander (26 Oct 2007)

The forces may be facing a shortage of pers.  However as an ex-Reg Force who started my career in the Reserves, I have now gone back to the Reserves.  I fully intend to serve as long as I can and contribute to the new unit that I have just joined.    I hope that the majority of those who take their release from the Reg Force over the next few years, will transfer over to the Reserves, so that we do keep the knowledge and experience that they have gained.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Oct 2007)

Roughly speaking, twice as many Reservists join the Reg F annually than Regs who join the Res (on the Army side at least).  And many Reg F folks who get out are doing so to double-dip, vice parading with a unit and sharing their knowledge and experience.


----------



## hbear (11 Dec 2007)

3VP Highlander said:
			
		

> The forces may be facing a shortage of pers.  However as an ex-Reg Force who started my career in the Reserves, I have now gone back to the Reserves.  I fully intend to serve as long as I can and contribute to the new unit that I have just joined.    I hope that the majority of those who take their release from the Reg Force over the next few years, will transfer over to the Reserves, so that we do keep the knowledge and experience that they have gained.



I hear you on that one I just re-joind the reserves after a 9 year leave ;D   My plan is exactly the same as 3VP Highlander. I ran into some friends who are re-joining as well. Most need a premission slip from their "9'r higher" but all in all its going to be a good go.  See you in the field.


----------



## krustyrl (11 Dec 2007)

What is being done to retain those nearing TOS.?  Not much incentive to keep skilled tradesman in the Air Force, that I've heard, anyway.


----------



## Cpl4Life (17 Dec 2007)

OberstSteiner said:
			
		

> http://www.canada.com/globaltv/maritimes/story.html?id=90cbbca3-923a-48f4-95d8-6d7ead6c4c9f&p=2
> As anyone who has quit the forces and wished to rejoin, or those already in the reserves who want to go full time, this can prove to an extremely frustrating experience akin to banging ones head on a wall. It is far easier to com off the street and join than to rejoin. To wrap what I am saying in a nutshell, bullshit! I know from personal experience how long and how many flaming hoops I have had to endure since I decided a few years back that I wanted to rejoin. I wasn't taking the reserves too seriously but I did enjoy the experience immensely, unfortunately it just got in the way of my masters program, which I gave preference to. After a few years of maturing and a nice degree under my belt, I made an informed decision involving family and friends and most difficultly, my wife, to rejoin.



A close relative of mine was fully trained in his trade and it took over three years to get from reserve to reg.  I was under similiar circumstances and almost went with the mounties instead of the CF because they got my ass in depot way faster.  But I wanted CF so to the chagrin of my wife I stuck it out.  Good on you for sticking with it.  How long did it take you?  I've read one guy on here it took 7 years, now that is total b.s.


----------



## Bigmac (23 Apr 2008)

> *Keeping soldiers in uniform becoming a more challenging task: documents*
> 
> Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...



Is the extension of the mission in Afghanistan to blame? That is subjective and varies from person to person.

Are baby boomers retiring? Absolutely, but most have served their time and were planning to retire anyway.  I am at the tail end of the baby boomers and I see retirement looming in the not to distant future. Some are tempted by civilian job offers and why not? If you can earn a good civilian salary on top of your military pension why wouldn't you be lured away? That sure is my ultimate plan and I know I am not alone!

The real problem as I see it is not only recruiting but retaining younger CF members especially those in middle management positions. If we lose the middle there is nobody to train the new pers and nobody to groom into the higher positions as baby boomers retire. 

Although I hate surveys, maybe it will shed some light on how to fix the problem before it becomes worse in the next 5-10 years.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Apr 2008)

Considering our last big recruiting surge was in the early to mid-1980s, this is just the 25 year point for that generation.  Without the demographic stats for various groups by age/years of service, it's hard to say if the current increase in releases is really statistically significant overall, or if it is significant for certain groups.


----------



## EW (23 Apr 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Considering our last big recruiting surge was in the early to mid-1980s, this is just the 25 year point for that generation.  Without the demographic stats for various groups by age/years of service, it's hard to say if the current increase in releases is really statistically significant overall, or if it is significant for certain groups.



Exactly!  I joined during that time frame - following the '86 white paper.  When you consider that this was not followed by another surge for decades, and the impact of the FRP in the early nineties, a large number of people have come to the end of their contract, and the system just doesn't have as many people coming up behind them to fill in the holes.  Combined with the pressures of operations in Afghanistan, I would think that the temporary blip of higher releases/retirements as people from the last big surge come to the end of their contract, has had a more pronounced impact than past years.  This would surely skew any statistics.  This is all conjecture of course - and I look forward to their survey results.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Apr 2008)

In fact, if you look at graphs illustrating "releases by years of service" expressed as a proportion of people in year period, you'll see that release rates are pretty much unchanged from historical norms - that is, the same proportion are getting out at 20, 25 or 27 years as always - it's just that as a proportion of the force more folks are hitting those gates at the same time.

Of course, at the start of FRP and structure cuts one of the first groups to get the axe were the long-term HR planners, whose job was to see these things coming and prepare mitigation strategies...


----------



## armyvern (23 Apr 2008)

Craploads of releases in my trade. Overwhelmingly for those of us who, like me, joined in the mid-late 80s and are now pensionable. They aren't getting out because of Afghanistan (unlike how the MSM seems to be playing it) -- they're just pensionable and frustrated.

Lot's of incentive for newbies to join; little incentive for those of us who are pensionable to stay. Oddly enough, most of those who I know in my trade who are getting out ... are doing so precisely because they CAN'T get on a tour over to Afghanistan. The longer you're in, the higher in rank you get (well -- you should anyway) and the less spots there are on deployments. 

They want to deploy, but can't; why stay feeling like you're not contributing to much anymore, especially when you've also spent a couple decades training and waiting to do your job, but based upon rank can't get one of the damn precious few spots to finally be able to do the job you trained for for twenty years?

The CF wants to solve the retention issue? It's got to offer some kind of incentive to those kind of pers. Why stay in when I can get out, collect my pension, and get paid 3 times as much for doing the same darn job in Alberta?

OR,

The Canadian economy needs a recession -- who the hell gets out during a recession?? Retention problem solved.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Apr 2008)

Vern:

Interesting post.  I'd say that part of the problem is the rhetoric of the CLS these days "If you haven't gone to Afghanistan, you're going."  There aren't enough billets at all ranks for everyone to go.  And many folks back in Canada (even one or two of us in Ottawa!) do important work to support the efforts of those deployed.

"Incentive to stay" is a loaded term - from your subsequent comments, it appears to be more a feeling of not contributing.

Maybe we need a more nuanced message - letting those in "the Army Foundation" (the latest buzzword) know that they are important and making a difference; that they are enabling those who deploy.  Maybe we need to rethink some of our establishments - move a few Cpl Sup Techs from the bases into the Cbt Arms units, and replace them with the Cbt Storesmen from the bns to give everyone an idea of how the other half lives.

Maybe we need to focus on building "The Army Team", instead of "Afghanistan" and "Not" teams.

Money won't buy happiness.  A command environment that values and recognizes the efforts and contributions of everyone - not only the pointy end guys in theatre - will do a lot to help.


----------



## armyvern (23 Apr 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Maybe we need a more nuanced message - letting those in "the Army Foundation" (the latest buzzword) know that they are important and making a difference; that they are enabling those who deploy.  Maybe we need to rethink some of our establishments - move a few Cpl Sup Techs from the bases into the Cbt Arms units, and replace them with the Cbt Storesmen from the bns to give everyone an idea of how the other half lives.



Yeah, we heard it today on parade. We're important. Training system would collapse without our support ...

Meanwhile --- just in my trade, 8 of just one rank being posted out with "no replacement" because someone in your location keeps telling us that "pri 6 is the lowest of our priorities for manning". Which means that even WHEN we finally get a possible spot for one of us higher ups on a TF -- they say "NO, we can't afford to lose you -- we're too short staffed". And, then they wonder why we toss the release paperwork on the table.

What one hand giveth -- the other taketh just as quickly. Same old/same old.


----------



## lou-reed (23 Apr 2008)

I am one of those who just released after 20 years of service.  In the mid to late 80s, Cornwallis was pumping out over 100 recruits per week.  When the budget dried up in the early to mid 90s the number of recruits dropped considerably.  There will be an increase in attrition for about the next 6-7 years until the lack of recruiting in the early 90s catchs up with the increase that occured in the later 90s and beyond.

Why did I release?  It was not because of Afghanistan.  When I reached 18 years I had reached my peak.  It was my decision that I did not want to do the required "checks in the box" in order to be promoted.  I liked what I was doing but it was my own personal decision.  With that comes the fact that I did not want to remain a member of the CF just to receive a paycheck (too many do that already).  I did stick around for the 20 years for the pension but I did spend my 20th year in Kandahar as I was still under contract and still did what was required of me.

In my opinion, things in the CF are not getting any easier, and there are more courses, training, and professional development being asked of CF members in order to be promoted.  Perhaps the adults should look at these issues when they ask themselves why people are releasing.

Loved my 20 years in, but it was time to move on and have no regrets about doing so.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yeah, we heard it today on parade. We're important. Training system would collapse without our support ...
> 
> Meanwhile --- just in my trade, 8 of just one rank being posted out with "no replacement" because someone in your location keeps telling us that "pri 6 is the lowest of our priorities for manning". Which means that even WHEN we finally get a possible spot for one of us higher ups on a TF -- they say "NO, we can't afford to lose you -- we're too short staffed". And, then they wonder why we toss the release paperwork on the table.
> 
> What one hand giveth -- the other taketh just as quickly. Same old/same old.



Vern:

It can't just be words.  There have to be actions to support it.  Hmm, what's that term I'm thinking of... where people have a vision, they communicate it, and get everyone else to adopt it and embrace it to move forward...

I'm sure it will come to me, but it's been a hell of a long time since I've seen it...

Oh yeah!

*Leadership!*


----------



## a78jumper (24 Apr 2008)

Lou-Reed your comments sum up my experience in a nutshell, though the offer of a third and final FRP in 1996 certainly hastened my decision. The mid 90s  were very frustrating years .The system really took a dim view of those that did not want a promotion, refused career courses etc, and it was time. I served in Camp Julien as a civy contractor on Roto 0  for a year so and also as a reservist fo three years so my military experience did not end totally at the 20 year point. Too much time in NDHQ sitting on my arse doing absolutely nothing at all also was a major influence.


----------



## armyvern (24 Apr 2008)

Good points Lou ... 

I still LOVE my job, the courses/PD etc don't bother me a single little bit ... and that's where my dilemma lies because I am on the verge of tossing mine on the table. For me, it's not about the bucks either -- or I'd already be out west, but it takes a lot out of someone to sit back and see a bunch of pri 6ers who work their asses off day after day to keep that trg sp going --- get zero rewards for doing so other than a commendation here, a commendation there, and a "good job -BZ" every O Gp ... while they watch their staffing levels decrease weekly and their workloads increase with no expectation of change on the horizon.

I call it frustration ... and when it's becoming a daily issue even for people like me who love our jobs and don't want to get out --- _we have a problem Houston._


----------



## a78jumper (24 Apr 2008)

Vern if you want a job out here in the Oil Sands PM me your email address- my boss is an ex trucker, and I also work with an ex 911 CWO and another retired trucker  LCol.


----------



## armyvern (24 Apr 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Oh yeah!
> 
> *Leadership!*



Nice word. Come live in a pri 6 world and see where that gets you. Leadership is in every one of us. Lot's of awesome and excellent leaders about this place throughout all levels of the CoC. Still --- we're all pri 6 ... and in careers' eyes -- that's where we remain. Sad, but true. Until that gets fixed --- we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

And, it wasn't just "words" -- a section received the LFAA Comd Commendation for their outstanding work & sp for TF1-07, and an individual received one for her outstanding efforts. The actions are there too.

What they need to do is correct this pri6 situation where every unit that we support are all pri2 and fully manned, and supporting an EXTRA 1200 pers this summer for trg ... while we remain pri 6 for manning (meaning they can rob our pers for anything and if we "no fill" get told -- you're pri 6 "fill it") watch our pers posted out with no replacement (and it's not like we didn't have posns unfilled before this APS either) simply because we happen to be pri 6. Something --- is dreadfully wrong with that.

It certainly didn't help that the Army grew the zero trades, but not the trades required to provide the support to them. It all kinds of comes together to create a situation where, despite ones love of the job, you certainly don't feel your contributions matter ... or that you are indeed deemed to be "important" in others' eyes, especially when they keep re-iterating "you're only pri 6".


----------



## dapaterson (24 Apr 2008)

Vern:  I spend considerable time monitoring pri 5 units -the reserve units.  I'll use the infantry as an example:  65% of the Reg F officer positions in the Res infantry units are vacant.  Think about that.  With a significant percentage of those deployed overseas coming from the Reserves (I won't give numbers over these means), that many vacancies impairs the ability to force generate.  Same problems at pri 6 units - we don't have good process models to explain how things work, or what the impact of not filling those units has.

Unfortunately, support, whether the ASUs/ASGs or RSS/RFC at Res units is not sexy, and does not draw attention - unless things collapse.   Then we blame the incumbent who inherited the mess and had the collapse on their watch.


----------



## armyvern (24 Apr 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, support, whether the ASUs/ASGs or RSS/RFC at Res units is not sexy, and does not draw attention - unless things collapse.   Then we blame the incumbent who inherited the mess and had the collapse on their watch.



Bingo. What's wrong with this picture?

So, there's my frustration. Same old/same old to the troops. It's not like the incumbent hasn't tried to address the issue. And if that's not fixing things or at least making them a little bit better --- then why would I (and the others like me) even begin to think (or my troops for that matter who don't get to see what happens behind the scenes) that what I did/said was important?

Why stay ... when even the important people, despite their trying desperately, can't seem to get anyone to listen. (LFC is listening ... it seems that careers is not though, and, unfortunately, those are the people that need to).


----------



## rifleman (24 Apr 2008)

When you say LFC is listening, what are they doing??

Unfortunately, the military deals mostly with breakdown maintenance not preventative


----------

