# Let "The Journey" Begin



## The Bread Guy (12 Jan 2017)

Spotted this on the public tendering page - also attached if link doesn't work:


> ... The Department of National Defence has a requirement to develop The Journey – a modern concept for personnel support which will make Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel support more compassionate, dependable and comprehensive, while ensuring effectiveness, efficiency and affordability in a healthy and safe workplace.
> 
> The DND wishes to contract a senior leadership advisor to assist the team’s leadership in developing a Strategy and Action Plan. The senior leadership advisor will occupy a key post in the team and will be principally focused on providing internal advice to the team leadership on the execution of its mandate ...


Here's the list of companies being invited to send in a proposal:


> ... 3056058 Canada Inc.
> A Hundred Answers Inc.
> Altis Human Resources (Ottawa) Inc.
> Auguste Solutions and Associates Inc.
> ...


"Personnel support" - is that HR services, or is that broader support?


----------



## beachdown (12 Jan 2017)

I wonder how many companies on that list have subsidiary companies also listed i.e. masquerading as another company?


----------



## Flavus101 (12 Jan 2017)

It is rather depressing that we have to contract outside personnel for this matter...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Good post Pete.  I did 4 years on IR, Halifax - Kingston.  I feel your pain.  Its a good program and its very useful.  In my case I lived off base in the extreme west end of Kingston in a basement apartment.  Also there are those people out there who will make snide remarks about you being on IR or your spouses "inability to move".  Just shrug that off.
> 
> I know I may be one of the few, but I really wanted to live in Barracks and eat at the mess, but the BComd had a policy that was a no go for that.  Give me free rations and quarters and let me buy my own net connection and I would be a happy dude.



I've never understood this mentality in the Military, it's outdated.  Considering many other Industries move workers all over the planet with no expectation that their family moves with them.  A relative of mine owns an Oil & Gas Drilling Company in Alberta and has literally ran projects all over the world: Libya, Venezuela, SE Asia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.  You name it he has lived and worked there.  His family has never once moved from Calgary where they reside.

Another Uncle of mine is a Mechanical Engineer who designs turbines for Power Plants.  He has lived all over the place as well, his wife and my cousins though?  Quispamsis NB is home and they never moved once.

Moving a family every 3-4 years is stupid IMO, and usually completely unnecessary; however, we refuse to change our ways.  It demonstrates to me, a lack of respect for our work force and that we view our soldiers, sailors and aviators as disposable.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Apr 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I've never understood this mentality in the Military, it's outdated.  Considering many other Industries move workers all over the planet with no expectation that their family moves with them.  A relative of mine owns an Oil & Gas Drilling Company in Alberta and has literally ran projects all over the world: Libya, Venezuela, SE Asia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.  You name it he has lived and worked there.  His family has never once moved from Calgary where they reside.
> 
> Another Uncle of mine is a Mechanical Engineer who designs turbines for Power Plants.  He has lived all over the place as well, his wife and my cousins though?  Quispamsis NB is home and they never moved once.
> 
> Moving a family every 3-4 years is stupid IMO, and usually completely unnecessary; however, we refuse to change our ways.  It demonstrates to me, a lack of respect for our work force and that we view our soldiers, sailors and aviators as disposable.



A very Snr member in my trade and I had a conversation over some smokes and coffees recently and he was explaining to me the "Journey Program" (I may have the name wrong).  It sounded like a complete revamp of our TOS and career paths.  With differing career and pay potential depending on your ability/willingness to take on different duites, like postings, deployments and positions in first line units.  

Couple this with the rumored dress changes coming and our CAF will very different when I leave than the one I joined in the late 90s.  It is certainly and interesting time to be in the machine.


----------



## Lumber (13 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A very Snr member in my trade and I had a conversation over some smokes and coffees recently and he was explaining to me the "Journey Program" (I may have the name wrong).  It sounded like a complete revamp of our TOS and career paths.  With differing career and pay potential depending on your ability/willingness to take on different duites, like postings, deployments and positions in first line units.
> 
> Couple this with the rumored dress changes coming and our CAF will very different when I leave than the one I joined in the late 90s.  It is certainly and interesting time to be in the machine.



So, RegF vs Class-B service?


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Apr 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So, RegF vs Class-B service?



Something similar to that.  Kind of blurring the lines between Reg, Class B and Class C.  He also mentioned individual work schedules and hours.  You want to work 3 days a week because you have a young family ?  Ok.  You pay and career path will reflect that. And you can come and go from these differing scenarios with "ease".  

The way I understood it it sounded like your pay and career will pretty much depend on how much you are willing to do.  I don't have an issue with this method, but what do you do when no one wants to sail ?  Or deploy ? 

Example, want to stay in Halifax and not sail, you can but you wont go beyond killick and your pay will be reduced. Want to earn more ?  Take the tasks and postings and put for the effort to earn it. 

That's the way I understood it.  I am sure some senior people on here have heard of this program.  They can correct me if I am out in left field.


----------



## McG (13 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A very Snr member in my trade and I had a conversation over some smokes and coffees recently and he was explaining to me the "Journey Program" ...


I have heard many rumours on this, including one that suggests some senior leaders are marketing the concept internally well ahead of getting government approval.
Anyway, this probably belongs in its own thread.


----------



## armyvern (13 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ... They can correct me if I am out in left field.



You're not in left field, at least not the outfield.  Many COAs being considered and nothing set in stone as of yet.

As for the post that started this thread - hope it's sorted.  Soonest.


----------



## TCM621 (14 Jun 2019)

I don't know how I feel about this. I am glad reservists get a pay bump and I'm not one of these guys who think all reservists are useless. However, I think the threat of postings, 24/7 adherence to the CSD, being forced on courses and deployments regardless of what is going on in your life is worth more than 9% (Res Cpl base pay of 152. 98 / Reg Cpl base pay 5014 or 168.13 per day equal ~91%). I actually thought 85% was pretty fair and I have served both Reg and Res.

I know a long term class B job is essentially doing the same job for less pay. However, if they want the same pay, CTs are a much better process then they used to be and maybe three years is way too long for a temporary position.


----------



## mariomike (14 Jun 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I actually thought 85% was pretty fair and I have served both Reg and Res.



See also,

Why we pay Reservists what we do 
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/1010.325
14 pages.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I don't know how I feel about this. I am glad reservists get a pay bump and I'm not one of these guys who think all reservists are useless. However, I think the threat of postings, 24/7 adherence to the CSD, being forced on courses and deployments regardless of what is going on in your life is worth more than 9% (Res Cpl base pay of 152. 98 / Reg Cpl base pay 5014 or 168.13 per day equal ~91%). I actually thought 85% was pretty fair and I have served both Reg and Res.
> 
> I know a long term class B job is essentially doing the same job for less pay. However, if they want the same pay, CTs are a much better process then they used to be and maybe three years is way too long for a temporary position.



I agree with you.  As a reservist on class B I thought it was bullshit that I was doing a full time job and only making 85%. It wasn't until I switched over that I realized how total the army's (CFs) control can be of a members life and as you mention the threat of postings, forced courses and tasks and other stuff.

For example reg force member returns from a 7.5 month tour. He gets post deployment leave for a month, goes back to work for 3 weeks then is told he will be going to Meaford shortly for 4 months to fill a position because the reservist going pulled his name out of that task (and RUMINT has it, did so in order to get a spot in CG in Ottawa instead).


I think one of the biggest benefits the reserves offer the reg force is their ability to plug and play supporting deployments. Beefing up sections especially.
It's also a big hindrance for the same reasons. 

The volume of tasks reserves showing up injured or b-lining to the cdu is an issue too Imo. 


Reserves are important and the reg force needs them (just look at Afghanistan). That said now that I've seen both sides I think 85% is fair.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2019)

Reservists in the US are part time,but if they are on active duty they draw full pay and allowances just like any regular. Why not do the same ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2019)

I hope this does away with the shady practice of giving reservists 89 day class B contracts so we don't have to give them as much benefits or whatever that was for.


----------



## Remius (15 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hope this does away with the shady practice of giving reservists 89 day class B contracts so we don't have to give them as much benefits or whatever that was for.



Not likely.  The CAF is addicted to class B.  class B contracts and such need a complete overhaul.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not likely.  The CAF is addicted to class B.  class B contracts and such need a complete overhaul.



Start with no class B over 6 months. If the job is continuous fill it with Reg force or a make it C class. Have a reservist sign a 3 year class C, treat them like Reg force for 3 years and send them back to their unit when they are done.

There are too many people who have 15+ years of class B on an 18 year career.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jun 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This is good news for the reserves.
> 
> Now how about working some retention benefits for the reg force ?



You won't get any. A lot of folks will just create themselves a Cl B job, release into that job and tolerate a 8% pay cut to not get screwed around by being posted every couple years risking losing any equity you have in a home and uprooting your family. I personally think its appalling that all the extra stuff expected of a Reg F member is now only worth a paltry 8% above a PRes member, and I speak as someone who spent a long time as a Cl A, B and C Reservist before I went Reg F.


----------



## Remius (16 Jun 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I personally think its appalling that all the extra stuff expected of a Reg F member is now only worth a paltry 8% above a PRes member, and I speak as someone who spent a long time as a Cl A, B and C Reservist before I went Reg F.



That calculation always existed. They just gave the reserves the factors that applied to them that they should have had from the get go.  

Now if 8% isn’t an accurate or fair number for the unique factors of the reg force then that is a different issue.


----------



## Monsoon (16 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> That calculation always existed. They just gave the reserves the factors that applied to them that they should have had from the get go.
> 
> Now if 8% isn’t an accurate or fair number for the unique factors of the reg force then that is a different issue.


Very, very well-put. For my part, I’ve always been skeptical of the mathematical magic that goes into the “military factor”: it’s pretty clear that the paths leading to the Director level in the public service and the military are extremely divergent (grad school and a few years’ experience, versus grad school and about 30 years experience), to the point that you have to wonder how we can be talking about comparable roles.

As far as the military factor for relocation as it applies to the RegF: I think we all know more than a few people who have spent 20+ years working in the same geographical location. If you want to reward people for relocating, develop a mechanism to do so (instead of “smearing” that reward across an entire workforce that includes many folks who have successfully put down roots in one location).


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jun 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> As far as the military factor for relocation as it applies to the RegF: I think we all know more than a few people who have spent 20+ years working in the same geographical location. If you want to reward people for relocating, develop a mechanism to do so (instead of “smearing” that reward across an entire workforce that includes many folks who have successfully put down roots in one location).



Thats apparently being worked on, whether we'll see it in this lifetime is another thing. Don't get me wrong, good on the PRes for getting a pay raise. However, I think the fact that they're so close to what a RegF member makes, with a significant increase in "military factors" really shows how poorly compensated we are. The sad truth is, if the RegF gets a pay raise to compensate for the uniqueness of RegF service, then the career Cl B junkies will soon come calling for more money because "its not fair they're paid less".


----------



## Jay4th (20 Jun 2019)

As a 25 year Reg Force Infantry MWO, who has not spent more than 2 years in the same geographical area in the last 10 years, this makes releasing into a class B job for some stability look very attractive.  Perhaps I will call it "the journey" .


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2019)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> As a 25 year Reg Force Infantry MWO, who has not spent more than 2 years in the same geographical area in the last 10 years, this makes releasing into a class B job for some stability look very attractive.  Perhaps I will call it "the journey" .



The instability of being on Class B is what made me jump ship to the PS.


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Jun 2019)

Unless things have changed you are on a one or two year contract and must apply for your posn as the requirement is that the posn must be a advertised extensively not just local area.


----------



## Monsoon (21 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The instability of being on Class B is what made me jump ship to the PS.


Which is why every other organization in the world pays a premium to its contract employees...


----------



## MJP (21 Jun 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> Which is why every other organization in the world pays a premium to its contract employees...



They also rarely ever get benefits associated with regular employment in the organization that contracted them.


----------



## Haggis (21 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The instability of being on Class B is what made me jump ship to the PS.



About 14 years ago I was working in the IM Gp. A civilian project manager there had about two dozen Class B's working for him.  All were in 3 year positions but were only offered one year contracts which he re-competed every year. When I asked him why he said that "if they are offered the security of a three year contract, they won't work as hard to keep their jobs".


----------



## Remius (21 Jun 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> About 14 years ago I was working in the IM Gp. A civilian project manager there had about two dozen Class B's working for him.  All were in 3 year positions but were only offered one year contracts which he re-competed every year. When I asked him why he said that "if they are offered the security of a three year contract, they won't work as hard to keep their jobs".



Running 24 hiring processes a year seems like a lot of work for a PM who I assume had an actual project to run.


----------



## Haggis (21 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Running 24 hiring processes a year seems like a lot of work for a PM who I assume had an actual project to run.


He had a PO2 Clerk who was solely responsible for "managing" his Class B staff as the sailor was, otherwise, unemployable.


----------



## Monsoon (21 Jun 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> He had a PO2 Clerk who was solely responsible for "managing" his Class B staff as the sailor was, otherwise, unemployable.


Well, y'see he didn't have to compete for his job every 12 months, so...


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jun 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> Well, y'see he didn't have to compete for his job every 12 months, so...



<slight scraping noises as soap box is dragged up>

The whole 'Class B trap' is an insult to the dignity, self-respect and standards of care and efficiency that we should otherwise expect to be a salient feature of military service. 

This temp worker type shell game is likely responsible for causing more dysfunction (operational and personnel wise) than it is solving. Either increase the size of our Regular Force to accurately reflect the work that must be done to maintain a viable national defence capacity, or downsize and manage expectations accordingly. 

Extended, system wide, deep tissue levels dependence on a contracted service meant for closing specific gaps for short periods of time, with small numbers of people, is probably equivalent to trying to brace the broken main mast on a China Clipper with a hockey stick and gun tape just before rounding the Horn. 

<gradually diminishing scuttling away sounds>


----------



## mariomike (21 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The instability of being on Class B is what made me jump ship to the PS.





			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The whole 'Class B trap' is an insult to the dignity, self-respect and standards of care and efficiency that we should otherwise expect to be a salient feature of military service.
> 
> This temp worker type shell game is likely responsible for causing more dysfunction (operational and personnel wise) than it is solving.



At least temporary workers in civil service union jobs have layoff and recall rights.


----------



## Remius (21 Jun 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> <slight scraping noises as soap box is dragged up>
> 
> The whole 'Class B trap' is an insult to the dignity, self-respect and standards of care and efficiency that we should otherwise expect to be a salient feature of military service.
> 
> ...



Totally agree with this.  The Pres should have dedicated long term class B positions that directly support the Pres.  Like RQ staff, OPs and some HRA/FSA types. 

They should also career manage those positions to avoid stagnation.  6 years plus in the same job isn't good for them or the institution. 

You hit the nail on the head with the class b problem.  It should never be a long term solution.  MATA/PATA, short term fills etc is what it should be.


----------



## Haggis (21 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> You hit the nail on the head with the class b problem.


And so did you.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> The CAF is addicted to class B.  class B contracts and such need a complete overhaul.



The PRECS program about seven or eight years ago was supposed to be an institutional "intervention" to deal with the CAF's (particularly NDHQ's) addiction to Class B.  It wasn't and resulted in Class B reductions at the Armoury floor level where they were needed the most.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jun 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> Good point. In practice the different theoretical time-in-rank requirements are patched over by the very common use of accelerated promotion to Cpl in the RegF, which is not available to reservists. But there’s no obvious reason to have differing policies on either point.



There's a pretty big difference in the abilities of a Res Cpl IPC 0, and a Reg Cpl IPC 0.  I don't see a need to water down the Reg Force Cpl anymore than it has been.  By the time they get thru basic, Initial Occupation trg and get a little experience downrange...they're looking at their 2nd hook.

4 years isn't that much experience when you take that into consideration (experience once at OFP);  if a PRes type is a Cl A type...at 2 years, they don't likely have any real/useful experience.  If anything, move them to the 4 year for promotion, not the opposite.


----------



## Monsoon (21 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 4 years isn't that much experience when you take that into consideration (experience once at OFP);  if a PRes type is a Cl A type...at 2 years, they don't likely have any real/useful experience.  If anything, move them to the 4 year for promotion, not the opposite.


I guess you won't get any argument here - except perhaps to note that in general "time in rank" is a piss-poor way to evaluate performance and skill, and perhaps a less 1950s personnel management system would improve outcomes.


----------



## Monsoon (21 Jun 2019)

MJP said:
			
		

> They also rarely ever get benefits associated with regular employment in the organization that contracted them.


I wouldn't say that's the case with organizations that operate at a comparable scale to the CAF (oil & gas supermajors, as an example, or UN agencies). There, the benefits packages for contractors tends to be more or less the same as whatever is currently offered for new permanent staff; the contractor premium is paid because of the value of being able to scale up and down the workforce with minimal friction. The number of permanent employees at a company like Shell - even among executives - is a small fraction of its workforce.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jun 2019)

4 years of being part time isn't much experience unless that soldier has deployed.I know in the US a guard or reserve E8 doesn't have much experience as an active duty E8. If that reservist or National Guardsman were to join the active Army it wouldn't be as an E8, perhaps as an E6 maybe as an E7. Regular Army personnel going into the Reserves or National Guard might keep their old rank or be promoted into the Reserves depending on local rules.

The main recruiting selling point is retirement.

https://www.nationalguard.com/pay/calculator?utm_campaign=amrgfloodlighttagsanddisplayads&utm_campaign=Brand%20%7C%20Benefits%20%7C%20Exact&utm_source=66&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=amrgpaidsearch&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=web&utm_content=Benefits%20%7C%20Retirement&c3apidt=p32329840392&msclkid=0981c5015d5e1c3aadb9980c0ecb72c7&utm_term=national%20guard%20to%20retire&gclid=CPfzv8vJ--ICFaWKxQIdmtUEUA&gclsrc=ds 

Results

Results for E-5: 30 Years.
Weekend Drill Pay:
$441.40
Annual Training Pay:
$1,544.90
Active Duty Monthly:
During extended training, such as Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Traning, or when you are deployed for any reason. 
$3,310.50
Annual Total:
$6,841.70

I calculated what a Guard E5 might get paid after 30 years of service.


----------



## mariomike (21 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The main recruiting selling point is retirement.





> If you complete a standard part-time term in the Guard by age 60, you could be eligible to receive monthly payments* based on serving one weekend per month plus an additional 15 days per year, for 20 years.



That's a good deal.

Being in a service battalion, I could, and did, work lots of weekends. 

And summers while I was still in high school.

I also did the two-week summer concentration every year. My full time employer paid my wages. I submitted compensation received from the military to the city treasurer.

But, for the weekends, I was turning down overtime from my full-time job to work my part-time job.

Plus, back then I was still on shift work which complicated matters.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Totally agree with this.  The Pres should have dedicated long term class B positions that directly support the Pres.  Like RQ staff, OPs and some HRA/FSA types.
> 
> They should also career manage those positions to avoid stagnation.  6 years plus in the same job isn't good for them or the institution.
> 
> You hit the nail on the head with the class b problem.  It should never be a long term solution.  MATA/PATA, short term fills etc is what it should be.



That sounds like Reg F service to ne


----------



## Remius (21 Jun 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> That sounds like Reg F service to ne



NAVres was doing this.  Not sure if they still are.  They would force people to find another class B after they did a three year contract.


----------



## Haggis (22 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> NAVres was doing this.  Not sure if they still are.  They would force people to find another class B after they did a three year contract.


Not always.  True, they would re-compete most contracts after three years, but many NAVRES sailors did six years in the same position.

And this speaks to the bigger issue of P Res career management.  The  P Res is not a "career", nor should it be.  It's a second job.  It's a temporary primary job (Class B, for a few years, maybe) and a great beginner's job.  The NAVRES has "career-ified" P Res service and they have done so by instituting a working career management function much like D Mil C does for the Reg F.  The Air Reserve does much the same thing but they also deal with a population which is, for the most part, ex Reg F and not looking for a second shot at making it to the top.  The Army Reserve, on the other hand have also managed to "career-ify" P Res service but without any of the enablers.  In short, an Army Reservist is his/her own career manager. Nobody in the Army Reserve outside your unit is looking out for you to take the next progressive step.
'


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jun 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> I guess you won't get any argument here - except perhaps to note that in general "time in rank" is a piss-poor way to evaluate performance and skill, and perhaps a less 1950s personnel management system would improve outcomes.



It's less about performance and skill and more about exposure and presence.

A private in the regular force will spend a lot more hours working and being exposed to the work place than a private in the reserves before being promoted to corporal, which is a non-commissioned officer (and leader of troops in some other countries).

If a private in the reserves did the bare minimum they could essentially get promoted after 2 years of showing up to work once a month for 3 hours.


----------



## Remius (22 Jun 2019)

Which is why they need to bring back actual metrics for PRes to get promoted to CPL. 

Used to be you needed a certain amount of time in the field ie at least one 7 day concentration like SG or Southern Drive and a QL4.  

It isn’t perfect but it was something.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (22 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The instability of being on Class B is what made me jump ship to the PS.



I’ve been asked multiple times to consider CTing to PRes by those I work directly alongside. (RegF, but currently working in a PRes unit.) I’ve said no each time, which usually resulted in a discussion about various reasons pertaining to my personal preference, as well as professional pros and cons...one main one being job stability—I’m not a fan of the in-principle theory of having to compete for my job every 3yrs.

That being said, one thing I’m observing is that trade clearly has an impact as to whether or not job stability is actually a legitimate concern. I’d assume Environment plays a large factor (having never worked under any but Army) and the specific unit is part of the equation also. For example, I work with multiple long-time cl B’ers, the longest being 28yrs. But as I understand it, this scenario would be practically impossible for a straight-up PRes Infantryman. I can’t compare the rarity of pers at my unit’s situations with others either, as most of my friends/acquaintances are RegF and I’m really only aware of a very small fraction of FTUC movement among staff at nearby units.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's less about performance and skill and more about exposure and presence.
> 
> A private in the regular force will spend a lot more hours working and being exposed to the work place than a private in the reserves before being promoted to corporal, which is a non-commissioned officer (and leader of troops in some other countries).
> 
> If a private in the reserves did the bare minimum they could essentially get promoted after 2 years of showing up to work once a month for 3 hours.



On top of this...is the big difference between Res and Reg TOS.  They aren't on the hook for nearly as much as Reg force people are, and that doesn't matter if its Class A, B, or B (A).  I've done all 3 classes of Res time.  I don't think the pay delta should be 8%; no offense to reservists; the avg reservist just don't bring the same skills, knowledge and competencies to the table the average Reg Force person does and they aren't 'deployable' like we are.  

If the SWAT Team Cl A folks are "being underpaid" as far as the GoC is concerned, then so am I and everyone else on Reg Force TOS.  CL B, while full time, isn't the same TOS as Reg Force TOS either.  The CL B pay should reflect that, just as CL C does when they fill a reg force position for a period of svc.


----------



## MARS (22 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> On top of this...is the big difference between Res and Reg TOS.
> 
> CL B, while full time, isn't the same TOS as Reg Force TOS either.


And I think the compensation and benefits differences  reflect that.  I've done 5 Cl B moves....not because I wanted to but because NAVRES ordered me to, if I wanted to stay employed.  I got 1000 dollars as my move grant.  I forget what RegF folks get...a half months pay or something?  There are doubtless pther differences as well.  So I'm not sure base pay is the only market of differing TOS.  

I tries to CT in the 1990s...the offer was pure crap.  I was a reservist  Lt(N) instructing a RegF MARS iV course...and I was told I would drop two ranks and would be required to complete the course I was instructing.  So the old "take your CT" argument isnt as simple as people like to suggest.  When the RegF finally stopped being totally  retarted in their CT process, there was zero intake at my rank level for years.  

I recently 'retired' INTO the RegF specifically so I WOULDN'T have to move any more.  Such are the terms of the RCN "Big Idea" for my rank and occupation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jun 2019)

Isn't this more related to "why Cl B shouldn't be a career" arguments, though, vice "should a Cl A reservist make 8% less than a reg force member?"  While I get the CT frustration (I've done one)...I don't think it related directly to compensation between Res/Reg.  As I've said, I've been paid as a Cl A, B and B(A) reservist and as a Reg Force member.  

So, while I see and have lived, at least some of the  :brickwall: you have in some way...I don't think your examples above support "res should make almost as much as Reg".  You simply didn't live within the same TOS and expectations as a Res as you do as a Reg member.

Cl B TOS is 'full time' but...you can't really be sent outside Canada against your will.  I don't that option and the number of CFTPOs for named ops I've done the last 5 years and change reflect that.  Deployment allowances and benefits don't really belong in that part of the discussion;  a reservist would receive the exact same ones as me if they deployed like me and also be on CL C.  The biggest difference though, is the...expectation? (I know reg force people avoid deployments...that's another separate topic...) that I will be deployable, and in my case, with a very short fuse between phone call saying "pack bags" and when we put wheels in the well.  I know that is not the average ready posture the majority of the CAF holds, but those of us who do hold it...8% more pay for that asspain 6 months at a time or longer??  It doesn't seem worth it to me.

Leads to another question;  if you are a spec trade MOSID, and go Reserve in the same Spec trade MOSID...but aren't doing your primary MOSID duties anymore...is the taxpayer getting their back for the buck paying you spec pay?  Aircrew NCMs are perfect examples.  Let's say they take a Cl A or B position in a Sqn Ops shop...scheduling and admin are the primary functions.  No flying, operating and maintaining currency and proficiency.  Is spec pay being earned?


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know that is not the average ready posture the majority of the CAF holds, but those of us who do hold it...8% more pay for that asspain 6 months at a time or longer??  It doesn't seem worth it to me



Then we should have a national Class A 'in case of operational deployments break glass' list. I know people who'd give their eye teeth to up sticks and go on a deployment somewhere, and this is a good way for the reserves to help operations. Just keep the list topped up with properly trained and 'DAG Green' Class A personnel, with all their Class C paperwork ready to go.

Unlike when it took them 4 months to pay me for a measly 2 week hitch on OP LENTUS a couple of years ago....   :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jun 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Then we should have a national Class A 'in case of operational deployments break glass' list. I know people who'd give their eye teeth to up sticks and go on a deployment somewhere, and this is a good way for the reserves to help operations. Just keep the list topped up with properly trained and 'DAG Green' Class A personnel, with all their Class C paperwork ready to go.



Don't the CBGs have some sort of "higher ready" sub-unit internally?  TBGs or something?



> Unlike when it took them 4 months to pay me for a measly 2 week hitch on OP LENTUS a couple of years ago....   :



Don't feel bad, pay/compensation/allowances are fucked up in the Reg force world too!   :nod:  I've been home from a named Op deployment since end-Nov.  I've yet to receive my tax free, Ops FSP, HA and RA.

They did, however, finalize our claims and determine that "WHOOPS!" our Det shouldn't have received incidentals the whole time...and did up the paperwork to recover money from us.   :not-again:

Since the 2018 named op deployment, I've done another named op deployment.  they got the tax free and Ops FSP right this time, but not the HA/RA...and just let us know "whoops!" they advanced us too much on our claim so...more money being recovered.  Did I mention that I have an IDTC and IAW the CFTDI...I am not supposed to get advances on my claim?  I don't understand how I am not pay/admin and I know these things...but they don't.  FUBAR.


----------



## kratz (22 Jun 2019)

With all the opposition to this change, it appears the RegF want to treat the PRes more like Walmart greeters.

Lets just "rollback" the pay and benefits to pre-1997 levels:

- 60% of RegF pay
- only CASDA for SHADS
- rermove PILL
- remove VAC access
- remove part l.1 of the CFSA
- remove BGRS moves for SHADS
- ect...  and....
- don't forget to not reintroduce any benefits remove since then (ie: RFRG)


----------



## Remius (22 Jun 2019)

Spit balling again with ideas.

I think in the PS anyone’s who is a term or casual employee gets the same pay rate as their indeterminate colleagues.  But...

I believe they are paid at the lowest step level and never go up. 

To balance things out in regards to time in why not limit reserve pay to 92% but they can’t never go higher than the first IPC level.  That would recognize that time in is not equal but the base pay is the same.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I think in the PS anyone’s who is a term or casual employee gets the same pay rate as their indeterminate colleagues.  But...
> 
> I believe they are paid at the lowest step level and never go up.



Depends on the collective agreement.

We didn't have casual / part-time. 

We did have temporary. Their wages did not go up.

They were made permanent, in order of seniority, before qualified ( perhaps even more qualified ) "off the street" applicants were considered.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Spit balling again with ideas.
> 
> I think in the PS anyone’s who is a term or casual employee gets the same pay rate as their indeterminate colleagues.  But...
> 
> ...



And to play devils advocate- for those Retired Reg F people who join the reserves and 30+ years of service and experience into the unit...what then?


----------



## Remius (22 Jun 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And to play devils advocate- for those Retired Reg F people who join the reserves and 30+ years of service and experience into the unit...what then?



Same a retired PS that retired with 30 years and take on term or casual work.  

Welcome to the militia.  Different TOS.

If Reg force types were willing to leave and take a 15% pay cut I doubt that an 8% pay cut and being at a lower IPC level at the same rank would be much of an issue.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jun 2019)

[:'(
Helmets on.

I remember being on class B for a couple years. The income and structure was great (especially after tour) and in an Ops position I learned a hell of a lot and in turn did a hell of a lot for my unit. Really owe it to leadership who had my back so to speak. 

I also remember the very non-subtle threats from other members of the CoC that if I didn't like how things were ran I was only on a year by year contract and can be easily replaced. AND, I can also be given the boot in 30 days and replaced. It was a constant threat.

From suggesting it wasn't fair to be "Class B forced" to attend weekend exercises as a section commander when I was in a full time ops job to refusing to black list members from employment who the chain of command wanted to send messages to. When my class B wasn't renewed I CTd to the regs and the CoC threatened to make me go NES and ruin my CT if I didn't "get on board" for the rest of my time there(quick call to the JAG and gaining reg force infantry unit RSM fixed that fast).

And that wasn't a case about me being the only one in step. Other class B peers I had from across the brigade had similar issues and stories. Don't like how you're treated? We'll replace you in a month.


Maybe it's different now but the class B system was pretty messed up a few years ago. Whether mbrs make 85% or 92% or 100% of their regular force counter parts I think the CAF, at least for the army, has to take a deeper look at how class Bs are set up and run. 

And yea a pay raise is always awesome for the troops and instructors for summer taskings or even the year or 3 year contracts but I think all things considered it's all the class Bs in brigade headquarters that are benefiting the most from this. Maybe their manning and bloat needs to get looked at too.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Spit balling again with ideas.
> 
> I think in the PS anyone’s who is a term or casual employee gets the same pay rate as their indeterminate colleagues.  But...
> 
> ...



This bases the solution comparing it to "PS like work";  there is substantially different realities within a Res and Reg Force TOS.  The TOS differences and experience levels are really what the focus should be on, not just experience levels.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> [:'(
> Helmets on.
> 
> I remember being on class B for a couple years. The income and structure was great (especially after tour) and in an Ops position I learned a hell of a lot and in turn did a hell of a lot for my unit. Really owe it to leadership who had my back so to speak.
> ...



Great points;  I was a CBG HQ Cl B (annotated A) type;  my position was a hard position within (as it was called then) the ARE (Army Res Establishment).  There were some folks at the HQ who'd been on B(a) for over a decade in the same job.  Not so much at the HQ, but at the units if you were a unit fulltime B type, yup you were expected to attend wknds ex's with no CTOs (as they were called then) to compensate and you'd better believe you were going somewhere to instruct/fill a staff position in the Area or even "anywhere in Canada".  

Our HQ COS (Reg Frce Cbt Arms LCol..also the HQ CO) got wind of what was going on...the Bde Comd issued direction saying "knock it off!" and...not long after it all went back the way it was.

Know what though?  I never had to worry about deploying outside our borders on XX hours of X days notice back then.  I made less money, sure, but it was also a lot easier on my life and family back then too.


----------



## Monsoon (22 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Know what though?  I never had to worry about deploying outside our borders on XX hours of X days notice back then.  I made less money, sure, but it was also a lot easier on my life and family back then too.


Okay, you've mentioned it enough times that I'm now genuinely curious: why is it that you regard tasks outside Canada as an unusual liability? You've acknowledged that the risk and hardship are subject to other allowances, so I gather it's the generally life-disrupting nature of the taskings? Well I've got news for you - a feature of class B life at a unit or HQ is having had to spend three months of every summer (i.e. when you'd rather be doing something with your kids) living in the huts at Meaford or Valcartier, or having to go to some remote part of the country for a long weekend or a few weeks on a "take it or leave it" basis and short notice. Frankly, if I had to unexpectedly spend twelve weeks in rough accommodations at a inconvenient time for my family, I'd rather do it in Eastern Europe.

At the same time, the use case you've described ("deploying outside our borders on XX hours of X days notice") is typically only a feature of a handful of high-readiness units (typically with their own unit or environmental allowances), and not of, say the third of the CAF that works in the CMP organization. Is it possible that you're generalizing your specific experience to all RegF folks?


----------



## Haggis (23 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> [:'(
> Helmets on.



I, too, spent a few years in the unit Class B "slave trade".  I was Ops WO (FTUC position) and HQ SM (Class A position).  I was tasked away each summer (one year from end April to Labour Day) to support RST, ARC and NRC.  Obviously, no leave was granted during that "critical" summer period.  Trying to take leave over the fall/winter training period when unit or bde exercises were planned  was often met with "you're on leave from your Class B weekday job, not your Class A weekend job.  I expect to see you out on exercise." Sometimes that came from the unit and sometimes from Bde.

On the other side of the coin, before I retired in December, I was a Class A Ops O for almost 3 years.  My Ops and HQ FTUC were tasked away from early April to late August. This left me and the Class A Adjt stickhandling RFIs for the entire unit which really throws a wrench into your summer as the "returns for XXX are due ASAP" and "regret short notice" messages don't stop during RST because the Bde and Div HQ staffs are still at their desks. As a Class A shift worker who had a CAF laptop at home I occasionally had revenge on the HQ staff by responding to their "time sensitive" e-mails between 0100 - 0400, thus setting off their Blackberies in the middle of the night.  ;D

I made a point of ensuring my Ops team got their summer leave passes in to me for the CO to sign long before tasking season started.  This was quite easy as the Bde and Div were usually very last minute in releasing tasking briques for the summer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jun 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> Okay, you've mentioned it enough times that I'm now genuinely curious: why is it that you regard tasks outside Canada as an unusual liability? You've acknowledged that the risk and hardship are subject to other allowances, so I gather it's the generally life-disrupting nature of the taskings?



I mention it because there isn't a Res Cl A or B member who can be told "you're going to Country A for Time B on Deployment Y" on any given day at work.  It isn't part of the Res TOS - it is part of every Reg TOS.  While not everyone will be deployed, everyone can be and is expected to be deployable.  That is the difference and why I mention it.  Every Reg force person is expected to be deployable...no Res force person is expected (realistically) to deploy.  



> Well I've got news for you - a feature of class B life at a unit or HQ is having had to spend three months of every summer (i.e. when you'd rather be doing something with your kids) living in the huts at Meaford or Valcartier, or having to go to some remote part of the country for a long weekend or a few weeks on a "take it or leave it" basis and short notice. Frankly, if I had to unexpectedly spend twelve weeks in rough accommodations at a inconvenient time for my family, I'd rather do it in Eastern Europe.



I've done the class B gig, I understand it BUT...Cl B is not supposed to be a career.  3 months in the summer....with the option to make it home on, at least, long weekends isn't so bad is it?



> At the same time, the use case you've described ("deploying outside our borders on XX hours of X days notice") is typically only a feature of a handful of high-readiness units (typically with their own unit or environmental allowances), and not of, say the third of the CAF that works in the CMP organization. Is it possible that you're generalizing your specific experience to all RegF folks?



It is an expectation for anyone posted to any operational unit, but it can happen to any reg force member (who isn't say, medically restricted) on any given day they walk into work.  It is a reality for high ready units and sub-units.  I think the Ready Duty ships are an example when the SHTF down in the Caribbean a few years ago (earthquakes, etc).  

I'm trying to draw attention to the expectation aspect thru Reg Force TOS vice Res TOS.  I understand not all people live that reality; this is true within the fleet I am posted to know, so I understand not everyone lives the way I and the crews I've been on the past 4 years.  There is the expectation though, that anyone can be deployed and that can happen on any given day you walk thru the breezeway.

The difference I am (maybe poorly) trying to draw attention to is the different expectation the GoC has from the avg Reg and Res force member.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jun 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I, too, spent a few years in the unit Class B "slave trade".  I was Ops WO (FTUC position) and HQ SM (Class A position).  I was tasked away each summer (one year from end April to Labour Day) to support RST, ARC and NRC.  Obviously, no leave was granted during that "critical" summer period.  Trying to take leave over the fall/winter training period when unit or bde exercises were planned  was often met with "you're on leave from your Class B weekday job, not your Class A weekend job.  I expect to see you out on exercise." Sometimes that came from the unit and sometimes from Bde.On the other side of the coin, before I retired in December, I was a Class A Ops O for almost 3 years.  My Ops and HQ FTUC were tasked away from early April to late August. This left me and the Class A Adjt stickhandling RFIs for the entire unit which really throws a wrench into your summer as the "returns for XXX are due ASAP" and "regret short notice" messages don't stop during RST because the Bde and Div HQ staffs are still at their desks. As a Class A shift worker who had a CAF laptop at home I occasionally had revenge on the HQ staff by responding to their "time sensitive" e-mails between 0100 - 0400, thus setting off their Blackberies in the middle of the night.  ;D
> 
> I made a point of ensuring my Ops team got their summer leave passes in to me for the CO to sign long before tasking season started.  This was quite easy as the Bde and Div were usually very last
> 
> minute in releasing tasking briques for the summer.



Most of the slots the CH HQ and unit Cl B (and RSS) were tasked to support were Res trg, no?

It makes sense, INO, that the Res should be the primary supporter of those tasking briques.  It also seems logical too that, if you were a B type, part of the reality of having the B position meant you'd be expected to support Res trg during the summer when the Cl A trg cycle was stood down until after Labour Day.   :2c:

I get it, people would have liked to sit around the armouries enjoying early dismissal, etc all summer....then who would support the Res trg, if not the full time reservists??


----------



## Haggis (23 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Most of the slots the CH HQ and unit Cl B (and RSS) were tasked to support were Res trg, no?


At the unit level yes, Bde HQ lesser and Div HO (being a total force HQ), no. In the last three years, only my FTUC recruiter was "protected" from RST tasks for the most part.  There was always some horse trading involved.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It makes sense, INO, that the Res should be the primary supporter of those tasking briques.  It also seems logical too that, if you were a B type, part of the reality of having the B position meant you'd be expected to support Res trg during the summer when the Cl A trg cycle was stood down until after Labour Day.   :2c:


 It makes perfect sense and I didn't have a problem with it, in principle. In fact, I had a couple of really good career enhancing summers in support of RST.  What I had an issue with was two things. First, the HQ driven guilt trips associated with trying to take annual leave (an entitlement, which I was quick to point out on a few occasions), during the fall/winter training year when leave was denied during RST.  Second, the inability of higher HQ to adjust it's battle rhythm during RST to account for the skeleton manning by solely Class A personnel during RST. Remember, a number of Class A officers and sr NCMs were either students at RST, ARC, NRC or delivering or supporting those activities. Yes, the Class A training cycle was stood down but in prep for the fall/winter cycle the higher HQ and CSS driven RFIs still came in, reports and returns remained due and business planning was ongoing while the units were at minimum manning.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I get it, people would have liked to sit around the armouries enjoying early dismissal, etc all summer....then who would support the Res trg, if not the full time reservists??


Yes, the occasional early dismissal, summer sports day etc. would be nice.  One could take that comment as an unfair characterization of the work ethic of the majority of FTUC.  They go balls to the wall every year for 9 to 10 months.  Should there not be a better way to manage their summers than sending them *ALL* away *EVERY* year?  Things have improved over the last couple of years, but there's still a long way to go.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jun 2019)

I don't have an answer for the "All summer, every summer" aspect.  The ones I saw that escaped that were the ex-Reg force "double dippers" who had to take a mandatory 31 day break on their B class.  They'd always take it the second half of the summer and escape the tasking brique.   IIRC, one WO would take his summer leave after Canada Day, then the 31 day break and some more leave....and basically come back the week after Labour Day.  That was one of the G3 IT folks.  Irony?  

Relating this back to the pay delta between Res and Reg though, and the TOS realities/impact...in the G3 shop, there was one Reg Force Sgt and a few ex-Reg Cl B types.  Guess which one didn't have a choice when they got put onto a ROTO in Afghanistan?


----------



## Haggis (23 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Relating this back to the pay delta between Res and Reg though, and the TOS realities/impact...in the G3 shop, there was one Reg Force Sgt and a few ex-Reg Cl B types.



In the past I saw a lot of "double dippers" who timed their Reg F release and transition to Class B TOS (often in the same job the CM's couldn't fill that APS) to line up their 35 day annuitant break with a portion of RST.  Cunning, to say the least, but they are not the first or last people to game the system.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Guess which one didn't have a choice when they got put onto a ROTO in Afghanistan?


And that's a perfect rationale for maintaining the XX% pay gap between Reg F and P Res.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Relating this back to the pay delta between Res and Reg though, and the TOS realities/impact...in the G3 shop, there was one Reg Force Sgt and a few ex-Reg Cl B types.  Guess which one didn't have a choice when they got put onto a ROTO in Afghanistan?



Or when the Reservists all bail on the summer "no fill not accepted" taskings and the Reg Force RSS are ordered to go fill all those spots.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jun 2019)

I think we are circling the drain here.  

I think the whole idea of Class B service should be scrapped.  You should be either Class A (Part time, limited liability, limited pay and benefits ) or Class C ( Full time, full liability and full pay and benefits ).  With the idea being that Class C reservists can be ordered to go where ever, to do what ever, when ever just like the Reg F.   Example got a job at HMCS Catarqui ?  Nope we need you more at HMCS XXX, off you go.  Don't want to move ?  30 days and you are back to Class A.


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think we are circling the drain here.
> 
> I think the whole idea of Class B service should be scrapped.  You should be either Class A (Part time, limited liability, limited pay and benefits ) or Class C ( Full time, full liability and full pay and benefits ).  With the idea being that Class C reservists can be ordered to go where ever, to do what ever, when ever just like the Reg F.   Example got a job at HMCS Catarqui ?  Nope we need you more at HMCS XXX, off you go.  Don't want to move ?  30 days and you are back to Class A.



I think you would have to still have 90 day short term class bs.  For things like tasks and reserve courses.  But I like what you are saying.   Easy fix.


----------



## dimsum (24 Jun 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> With the idea being that Class C reservists can be ordered to go where ever, to do what ever, when ever just like the Reg F.



So why have Class C then, if you're deployable and have long contracts?  Why not a Reg F with 3-5 year Continuing Engagements?


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jun 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So why have Class C then, if you're deployable and have long contracts?  Why not a Reg F with 3-5 year Continuing Engagements?



Essentially is what I have said, I agree.  And probably what should happen anyway.  The only thing with the Class C, in my previous statement, is they can be canned easily and quickly by simply refusing employment.  Not so easy in the Reg F, currently. 



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I think you would have to still have 90 day short term class bs.  For things like tasks and reserve courses.  But I like what you are saying.   Easy fix.



Why not use the Class C folks for this ?  It was the intent and spirit behind my post.


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Essentially is what I have said, I agree.  And probably what should happen anyway.  The only thing with the Class C, in my previous statement, is they can be canned easily and quickly by simply refusing employment.  Not so easy in the Reg F, currently.
> 
> Why not use the Class C folks for this ?  It was the intent and spirit behind my post.



So a new recruit that goes on summer task would be class C?  Or a 15 day task with an organisation?

I suppose it could work.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jun 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> So a new recruit that goes on summer task would be class C?  Or a 15 day task with an organisation?
> 
> I suppose it could work.



Yes to both.  Why not ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jun 2019)

Wasn't there talk in very recent years about changing (reg and res) TOS from it's current state to:

- full time, deployable;
- full time, non-deployable;
- part time, deployable; and
- part time, non-deployable.

This was part of "The Journey" program that was being considered;  deployable types would be paid 100%, non-deployable would be a reduced rate of pay...maybe this is the first step towards that?   :dunno:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Jun 2019)

Instead of all this Class A, B, or C kerfuffle, why not do something similar to the United States where the majority of Reservists (and National Guardmen) who are employed as full-time employees "supporting Reserve activities" are civilian employees who have to maintain membership as an active Reservist.  All these positions that we have filled by uniformed members filling Class B (and B annotated A) positions are, in the US, usually civil service positions that are linked to a rank and MOC.  Anyone filling these "technician" positions are paid at full-time civil service rates for doing their 9 to 5, Mon to Friday, fulltime job and during those times when their units "drill" (their one weekend a month and 14 days during the summer) they are paid for it just like every other reserve member who has a civvy job and does the reserve thing on the side.  As an example, I attended a dining-in at Travis AFB back in the early 1990s, the guest of honour was the Vice Commander of Air Force Reserve who had spent his reserve career as an "Air Reserve Technician" (ART) including his then two star job.


----------



## Parabellum02 (28 Jun 2019)

So recently I've been hearing a lot of discussion on potential plans to make the CAF a "one component" styled military, as opposed to having two main components. (I'm not sure what the status of the supplementary reserves will be). Is there any truth to this? I've witnessed heated debate on this topic numerous times and have also heard contradicting information. Thanks.


----------



## Quirky (28 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Wasn't there talk in very recent years about changing (reg and res) TOS from it's current state to:
> 
> - full time, deployable;
> - full time, non-deployable;
> ...



More importantly, where is the Reg Force / Non-Postable? I’d take a 10% cut to not end up in Cold Lake again. Sure beats the 100% cut my spouse would take if we move back there.


----------



## kratz (28 Jun 2019)

Currently, the suggested Journey is stillborn.
Too many legislative amendments must be passed and we are now into the summer > election > new government > new budget priorities.
To get this back on the rails will take a minimum 2 years, IMO.

For any worthwhile, positive changes for the CAF, I've seen it take a career or more worth time. Example: Pension update, SDA / LDA amendments, Leave policy (PILL).  Changes that CAF can make or influence within it's framework have already been made. The rest of "the journey" changes are outside of the CAF and require TB and / or Parliament changes to allow for the program to exist.

*If ...* "the journey" program was serious, a way ahead, revised suggestions on how to achieve the stated goals...even revised goals would be published. Instead, the good idea faeries have been promoted and posted after gaining their check in the box.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Without trying to sound sarcastic not all trades are essentially "civilians wearing a uniform" doing 8-4 office jobs. From a military perspective deploying abroad gives a lot of trades an opportunity to do things for real in challenging and dangerous environments. Interoperability with our allies and also gives us an environment where shitty performers are more easily identified and fired. Lots of people join the military to deploy and travel. Recruiting themes centering on filling sandbags for floods and putting out bush fires might backfire.
> 
> Politically, IMO, the ability to project some kind of military force around the globe is a make or break test whether people give a crap what a county says or not.



I agree with you that there are some people who  join because they want to deploy etc ,but it could go both ways.  More people might join if they were only going to be operating in Canada.  I'm not sure if you're Reg or Res but there are a lot of people in the Reg F that don't want to deploy.  Maybe some of the Sr. ranking mbr's here could comment on where things stand now but there was discussion and I've heard even planning underway that would allow people to opt out of deployments. It might mean a pay cut but there were different option being looked at.  I'm sure there are others here that have much more knowledge than I do and could probably explain it better.  Last year we (done on several bases) had for lack of a better word, a town hall with a lot of the JR which was basically looking at what people don't like and how things could change to make people want to stay in the CAF.  The CWO was shocked when he asked how many people wanted to deploy and only a few hands went up.  I'm not saying it's right but a lot of people these days look at the CAF as any other job.  People just have a different mentality these days.  Again I'm not saying it's right but that's how it seems.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Apr 2020)

Can you tell me with a straight face that you think the people who join the military and don't want to deploy outside of Canada will be okay with deploying across Canada in a time like this and leaving their family behind? Go stay in an abandoned arena and eat rations for 2 or 3 months?


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Apr 2020)

Wanting to deploy or not, we all signed the dotted line, they say go, you go. If you have an issue with that, do not join the CAF


----------



## medicineman (5 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you tell me with a straight face that you think the people who join the military and don't want to deploy outside of Canada will be okay with deploying across Canada in a time like this and leaving their family behind? Go stay in an abandoned arena and eat rations for 2 or 3 months?



Frig. I'm a civilian now and potentially have to look forward to that if things crap the bed here with this...and it wasn't in the contract when I signed up either incidentally.  

Thinking of small militaries of "neutral" countries, the Irish use their small military to punch above their weight class by deploying units on UN missions - in fact you are required to endorse you're willing to do at least 2 tours (IIRC) when you sign up or you can kiss your job goodbye (a big deal in a country with high unemployment).  This helps keep Ireland visible and relevant on the world stage AND keeps their professional military experienced.  

 :2c:

MM


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Apr 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Wanting to deploy or not, we all signed the dotted line, they say go, you go. If you have an issue with that, do not join the CAF



Everyone knows that's how it is now but that might not be how it is in the future.  Not me and not you as far as I know will be the ones deciding that.  There is discussion about that.  One thing we were all told is that in 5-10 years, the CAF of of today will not be recognizable.  We'll see what happens.

Things are changing, just a couple weeks ago, I was criticized for talking about Reservist not getting paid and now their getting paid a just to check in and say their ok, the Sr. Leadership is looking at finding a way to accumulate leave or find some option for people that were on leave and needed to isolate.  Something my WO said to me the other day was we have ref's but things are changing daily.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Apr 2020)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Frig. I'm a civilian now and potentially have to look forward to that if things crap the bed here with this...and it wasn't in the contract when I signed up either incidentally.
> 
> Thinking of small militaries of "neutral" countries, the Irish use their small military to punch above their weight class by deploying units on UN missions - in fact you are required to endorse you're willing to do at least 2 tours (IIRC) when you sign up or you can kiss your job goodbye (a big deal in a country with high unemployment).  This helps keep Ireland visible and relevant on the world stage AND keeps their professional military experienced.
> 
> ...



Talking to a British territorial, they can be deployed once every 4 years if I recall correctly. Systems we should consider changing ours to.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Apr 2020)

Is there anyone on here that can either ref what I'm referring to or address it better? I know how things are now but I'm referring to the way.  The way the group I was in at it explained was that there would be 3 elements.  Reservists, Reg F who are fully deployable and Reg F that don't deploy.  It would also be easier to switch back and forth.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Apr 2020)

Are you thinking of the Journey project within the CAF? 3 classes of people: Deployable and moveable, Deployable not moveable, and Not deployable not moveable. People in the deployable/moveable category would be paid more and be promoted far beyond people in the non-deployable/moveable category.

We're years away from that being approved, it would need a ground up pay and allowances re-write.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Apr 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are you thinking of the Journey project within the CAF? 3 classes of people: Deployable and moveable, Deployable not moveable, and Not deployable not moveable. People in the deployable/moveable category would be paid more and be promoted far beyond people in the non-deployable/moveable category.
> 
> We're years away from that being approved, it would need a ground up pay and allowances re-write.



Not to mention how would that affect the PRes? We by default are not moveable,but speaking for my self I want to deploy (and I am on OP LASER). How would the CAF govern the 3 categories? Volunteers? Because you bet more people would want to not move or deploy if it can be helped especially those with family.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Apr 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are you thinking of the Journey project within the CAF? 3 classes of people: Deployable and moveable, Deployable not moveable, and Not deployable not moveable. People in the deployable/moveable category would be paid more and be promoted far beyond people in the non-deployable/moveable category.
> 
> We're years away from that being approved, it would need a ground up pay and allowances re-write.



Yes that's it.  We were told 5-10 years.  Some of it WRT to medical is already somewhat being implemented. People are not being released nearly as much as they used to be., even compared to just a few years ago.  When I asked my MO about he said it's called "employable but not deployable".  I'll be honest. it seems confusing because as far as I've seen, nothing has changed as for as the Universality of Service goes but they've cut way back on med releases and are authorizing P-cat's with restrictions that would have had a mbr out the door even a few years ago.  I've seen P-cats come back saying no drill/parade greater than 30 minutes, no ruck sack marches, Self directed PT at own pace etc, some say PT limited in type and duration or words to that effect but I've seen both  meaning when the unit goes to the field the mbr goes to the gym or a jog /walk and does what he wants for how long he wants.  I've heard of some units especially combat trades pushing back but it's happening more and more.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Apr 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Not to mention how would that affect the PRes? We by default are not moveable,but speaking for my self I want to deploy (and I am on OP LASER). How would the CAF govern the 3 categories? Volunteers? Because you bet more people would want to not move or deploy if it can be helped especially those with family.



There are still a lot of unanswered questions about it but it's a topic that comes up frequently at townhalls and we're told it's going forward but will be 5-10 years away before everything is implemented. It's being implemented slowly in part over time.  Mbr's would be able to choose the option they want.  They apparently have a dedicated team looking at this we were told.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Apr 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Not to mention how would that affect the PRes? We by default are not moveable,but speaking for my self I want to deploy (and I am on OP LASER). How would the CAF govern the 3 categories? Volunteers? Because you bet more people would want to not move or deploy if it can be helped especially those with family.



Yep, there will be a lot of volunteers to not move or deploy. But it seems like those individuals will not be promoted and it was mentioned their pay will be a lot lower than those who are deployable/moveable. There will also likely be limited spots available so I would hope if you've hit 25 years not moving or deploying then you're not offered TOS and someone else can have your job. They haven't walked the dog on any of these fine details, at least in public, so we'll have to wait until the process is further along.

PRes was a whole other ball of wax that I haven't heard anything briefed on.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Apr 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yep, there will be a lot of volunteers to not move or deploy. But it seems like those individuals will not be promoted and it was mentioned their pay will be a lot lower than those who are deployable/moveable. There will also likely be limited spots available so I would hope if you've hit 25 years not moving or deploying then you're not offered TOS and someone else can have your job. They haven't walked the dog on any of these fine details, at least in public, so we'll have to wait until the process is further along.
> 
> PRes was a whole other ball of wax that I haven't heard anything briefed on.


are 

As far as promotions, since the option of opting out of promotions/PER's happened a few years ago, a lot of people are putting in the paperwork to stay Cpl for life
The only thing I've heard about the PRes was that it would be much easier and quick for them to become full time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Apr 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Yes that's it.  We were told 5-10 years.  Some of it WRT to medical is already somewhat being implemented. People are not being released nearly as much as they used to be., even compared to just a few years ago.  When I asked my MO about he said it's called "employable but not deployable".  I'll be honest. it seems confusing because as far as I've seen, nothing has changed as for as the Universality of Service goes but they've cut way back on med releases and are authorizing P-cat's with restrictions that would have had a mbr out the door even a few years ago.  I've seen P-cats come back saying no drill/parade greater than 30 minutes, no ruck sack marches, Self directed PT at own pace etc, some say PT limited in type and duration or words to that effect but I've seen both  meaning when the unit goes to the field the mbr goes to the gym or a jog /walk and does what he wants for how long he wants.  I've heard of some units especially combat trades pushing back but it's happening more and more.



That's a nice dream for a lot of people I'm sure but it's never going to work.


Where are you getting that they've cut way back on medical releases?


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's a nice dream for a lot of people I'm sure but it's never going to work.
> 
> 
> Where are you getting that they've cut way back on medical releases?



I've heard it from an MO, heard it from someone who's wife is a PA and see the PCat's when we put them on the Pers File. I'm not saying they're not releasing people, they are but they are often allowing people to continue serving for things that would have had them released not long ago.


----------



## ballz (5 Apr 2020)

I believe the categories that are alternatives to deployable/moveable were, for the most part, meant to be temporary as well.... To accommodate, for example, people's family needs/desires to give their young teenagers some stability until they finish high school.

I did not get the impression that the intent was you could join the reg force as non-deployable/non-moveable and stay that way for an entire career.

Also important to note that the CAF isn't particularly good at long-term cultural changes like this due to the nature of career progression, among other things. No matter who's baby this is, or even if it's a group of people's baby, they are all switching positions every year. It comes across as one of Vance's babies and he's already been the longest serving CDS ever, odds of him being around for another five years to keep driving that idea are pretty remote.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Apr 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I believe the categories that are alternatives to deployable/moveable were, for the most part, meant to be temporary as well.... To accommodate, for example, people's family needs/desires to give their young teenagers some stability until they finish high school.
> 
> I did not get the impression that the intent was you could join the reg force as non-deployable/non-moveable and stay that way for an entire career.
> 
> Also important to note that the CAF isn't particularly good at long-term cultural changes like this due to the nature of career progression, among other things. No matter who's baby this is, or even if it's a group of people's baby, they are all switching positions every year. It comes across as one of Vance's babies and he's already been the longest serving CDS ever, odds of him being around for another five years to keep driving that idea are pretty remote.


When we were briefed we were told you would probably select the option at the recruiting centre. Someone who only has a few years until they retire might want to do this and coast to retirement without the worry of a move or deployment was another suggestion. Until it's actually implemented, anything could happen.  As far as where it started, I believe Gen Lawson started the conversation but Gen Vance ran with it.  Apparently a lot of the CAF leadership are on board with this as they feel it might help with retention.  Who knows, after this virus is done with the economy things might be so bad people will stay just to have an income.


----------



## my72jeep (5 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you tell me with a straight face that you think the people who join the military and don't want to deploy outside of Canada will be okay with deploying across Canada in a time like this and leaving their family behind? Go stay in an abandoned arena and eat rations for 2 or 3 months?


Hell back in 1983 when I joined I’d have loved that, now maybe not so much.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (5 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Where are you getting that they've cut way back on medical releases?



That info has circulated prominently around my unit also. Medical releases are being evaluated under much higher scrutiny atm than they were in recent years, due to CAF wanting to focus on retention and getting the members back to regular duty; be it in a different trade, element, whathaveyou. That was from our LCol.


----------



## Quirky (5 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you tell me with a straight face that you think the people who join the military and don't want to deploy outside of Canada will be okay with deploying across Canada in a time like this and leaving their family behind? Go stay in an abandoned arena and eat rations for 2 or 3 months?



Give me 6-9 months sleeping in a desert cot over a concrete floor in an arena. Plus I doubt they will be giving out OP LASER medals and tax-free salary like you would overseas. Still waiting for my OP HONOR medal....


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Apr 2020)

Those options don't really make sense, and there are lots of people that could stay as 'deployable/moveable' but never actually do either (because of how their particular trade works and where they are in their career).

I'll use myself as an example; short of a deployment in some kind of purple position (which I haven't seen even a request for volunteers for in ages since Afg wound down), that's it for me, as I've done my ship tours and been promoted past those. Something like 75% of the positions at my current rank are based in Ottawa (with all the project work over the next 20 years), and there are more positions then people. I could easily continue to jump between jobs and organizations in Ottawa with no issue for the rest of my career without ever saying I don't want to move cities, but easily still be deployable/moveable.  And that wouldn't even be intentionally playing the system, just the reality of where I'm currently at and what holes need filled. There are probably all kinds of other trades that will stay in one geographic location (ie with the same battalion) but deploy all the time as part of normal ops, and others that would move geographic locations but rarely deploy. There are too many variables to make a simple rule out of this.

I think the move every two years plan is a relic from the days of the dad working while mom stays home with the kids. That age is dead. This work from home for an extended period of time should put yet another nail in the coffin showing that with the right tools being in the same office every day isn't necessary, so no reason to move people around so much, or have the team working in the same geographic locations.

I could see that just leading to a whack of grievances anyway; they'll inevitably need to deploy/move someone with a no deploy/move clause, then will be an arguement over pay or back pay. Rather then trying to create this insane new system to fix a problem, why not just give people more flexibility in where they locate their people?  A few years ago, we had a guy posted to us in Ottawa from Halifax that had something come up so made more sense for us to set him up in an office there and be our local contact for the project for the refit we were setting up in Halifax. It ruffled some feathers, but made more sense for us and worked out for the member. Ended up in a bit of TD cost, but was way cheaper then a cost move, and also meant he kept working for us instead of retiring right away. Most of these stupid top down initiatives are started because people are trying to fix a complex issue with a silver bullet, which normally just means you ignore the individual root causes and make a new problem.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 Apr 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> ...Things are changing, just a couple weeks ago, I was criticized for talking about Reservist not getting paid and now their getting paid...



Don’t go down this path again. For clarity and accuracy to all readers who may not be aware of your earlier posts, or the comments which followed, you weren’t getting “criticized” for saying Cl A’s should get paid. It was being pointed out, very clearly might I add, by multiple users, that the *way* in which you continued to argue your position without so much as the slightest nod of acknowledgement to those who were trying to shed light on the situation was what was being brought to your attention—it was your overall tone. If you’re going to reference earlier interactions, then please put them in the proper context. 

But you are correct in that they are getting paid. A system was established, orders came down and many are (hopefully) happy about that.


----------



## TCM621 (6 Apr 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> That info has circulated prominently around my unit also. Medical releases are being evaluated under much higher scrutiny atm than they were in recent years, due to CAF wanting to focus on retention and getting the members back to regular duty; be it in a different trade, element, whathaveyou. That was from our LCol.



I'm not looking forward to this. I have 24 years in and I don't want to be told a few years from now, we will take away your rank and you can give us a few more years as a Cpl RMS clerk. The first sign I see of any thing lime that and I stop pretending it doesn't hurt to work. I imagine a lot of older people are in a similar boat to me.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 Apr 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I'm not looking forward to this. I have 24 years in and I don't want to be told a few years from now, we will take away your rank and you can give us a few more years as a Cpl RMS clerk. The first sign I see of any thing lime that and I stop pretending it doesn't hurt to work. I imagine a lot of older people are in a similar boat to me.



I never got the impression that those who are legitimate cases would be denied and forced to continue working or VR, or anything of that nature. The message I interpreted was that if a member is still able-bodied enough, and able to meet UOS in another position other than what they were doing, (for example, this was the case of one of the members: can no longer perform all duties as required as a Firefighter, but can as HRA) then they would heavily lean towards that option. Also, them needing to put greater emphasis on weeding those out who are intentionally seeking a 3b/“the golden ticket” by exaggerating their conditions—We know they exist, which is deeply unfortunate.


----------



## stellarpanther (6 Apr 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Don’t go down this path again. For clarity and accuracy to all readers who may not be aware of your earlier posts, or the comments which followed, you weren’t getting “criticized” for saying Cl A’s should get paid. It was being pointed out, very clearly might I add, by multiple users, that the *way* in which you continued to argue your position without so much as the slightest nod of acknowledgement to those who were trying to shed light on the situation was what was being brought to your attention—it was your overall tone. If you’re going to reference earlier interactions, then please put them in the proper context.
> 
> But you are correct in that they are getting paid. A system was established, orders came down and many are (hopefully) happy about that.



It was a bad example to use but what I meant to get across is that right now a lot of policies are not being followed and in some cases changed or will be changed or so we're told.  HRA's are sticklers for making sure paperwork is done before things happen, right now a lot of things are happening and the paperwork will be done later.  A lot of HRA including some of the Sr. NCO's are just waiting for clarification on everything because there is so much confusion.  In some cases there are no messages, just a quick email saying so and so will be on class c until 31 Aug 2020 and that's it.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 Apr 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> It was a bad example to use but what I meant to get across is that right now a lot of policies are not being followed and in some cases changed or will be changed or so we're told.  HRA's are sticklers for making sure paperwork is done before things happen, right now a lot of things are happening and the paperwork will be done later.  A lot of HRA including some of the Sr. NCO's are just waiting for clarification on everything because there is so much confusion.  In some cases there are no messages, just a quick email saying so and so will be on class c until 31 Aug 2020 and that's it.



I typically work as HRA. Obviously unit-dependent, but the OR can only work so fast with the pers that they have in keeping up with new directives as they come. The size of the Regt makes a big difference also.

My OR, for example, is often swamped when everyone is working in the office normally and under standard conditions. We’re far from “normal” or “standard” atm, and on top of things, there aren’t enough supplies to disperse to everyone working from home. Things have happened very quickly and there’ll need to be some catching up at a later time. For now, it’s fair to say that some T’s will need to be left uncrossed and some I’s not dotted.


----------

