# Military bases struggling with personnel shortages, internal review finds



## MilEME09 (24 Dec 2020)

Military bases struggling with personnel shortages, internal review finds
					

Troops are instead prioritized into positions where they can conduct and support missions, recruit and train members, as well as manage military equipment




					nationalpost.com
				




We are starting to see reality coming into the public light of how our lack of trained personal in many trades is hurting aspects of our institution.

I say trained because I know many PAT platoons are rather large and this needs to be addressed.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2020)

Probably time to fix our LDA/SDA/Aircrew Pay system. Fit folks don't want to take the pay cut to go Base side, even for a temporary basis. If we had a real PLD system or actual legislated pay increased tied to inflation but compared to the PS every 10 years or so to readjust, then I'd buy dropping allowances to go to Base.

We all know folks who were told they were being posted to Base and got out because of it, and to say it wasn't largely due to the sometimes drastic pay decrease would be disingenuous.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Dec 2020)

A 'base' is a waste, in any supply chain system. We would be better off looking at just in time solutions for alot more of the services we require. Or more temporary set ups, to deal with peaks and troughs in demand, much like we see in various natural resources sector 'man camp' setups.

This article, about US military bases, highlights some of the opportunities in cost savings as well, but there needs to be the political will to 'pull the trigger' of course: 

"One of the largest sources of waste in the defense budget—and one that Congress can fix with a single piece of legislation—is the massive number of excess bases and facilities the Defense Department maintains here in the United States."  https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/06/27/cut-waste-defense-spending-brac-000468/


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Dec 2020)

I have to disagree DBA. 

Just on time doesn't work for a military.  I need warehouses full of parts collecting dust in case something happens.  

I'm not sure what bases we have left that we could close.  I mean Shearwater and Greenwood should probably be smashed together.  Buts that's all I can think of.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Dec 2020)

The "Base" isn't just a Supply Chain system. It controls multi millions of dollars in roads, grounds, buildings, heating, cooling, power, policing, fire service, etc. The Base concept is a small town and we won't get the PY savings we think by downloading its responsibilities to the unit level.

I also agree with HfxTar, there's only a handful number of items that would work in a just in time concept. Logistik Unicorp for DEU items is a success story, I'd like to see it expanded for any next to skin items and field/sailing/flying uniforms as well.


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Dec 2020)

Just in time does not work for our supply system, The pandemic showed its weaknesses. As an example I was on a base this summer and due to covid they got their January parts order in the second week of July. Why? Can't get parts if they aren't being made and shipped. If we were in a shooting war, we would of been screwed.


----------



## FJAG (25 Dec 2020)

I'm with Halifax Tar on this.

One needs to distinguish between the bases and the functions performed on them. I think that we've just about trimmed all the fat as far as the number and location of bases is concerned. What we need are better warehousing, spare equipment and logistics chains to speed up maintenance and to allow for the ramp up of the force. There may be some efficiencies available if we could group the command and control of some of these places but that's just a little bit.

Our biggest problem by far is the fact that during unification the Army lost many of the warehousing and workshop facilities that were part of the Army's 3rd and 4th line facilities and now every time we do a deployment we need to create _ad hoc_ NSEs which strip personnel and equipment out of 1st, 2nd and base support facilities across Canada thereby undermining the work that needs to be done back in Canada. We need a better organized (and mostly Army but some air and aviation too) 3rd and 4th line support system (and even 2nd line where the deployed organization is so small as to not have it's own integral 2nd line elements) that can support from Canada and/or deploy. It just seems to me that CFJOSG and CMSG aren't cutting it the way things are.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:


> I'm with Halifax Tar on this.
> 
> One needs to distinguish between the bases and the functions performed on them. I think that we've just about trimmed all the fat as far as the number and location of bases is concerned. What we need are better warehousing, spare equipment and logistics chains to speed up maintenance and to allow for the ramp up of the force. There may be some efficiencies available if we could group the command and control of some of these places but that's just a little bit.
> 
> ...


Maintenance wise all we have is 202 workshop in Montreal, however most 3rd and 4th line is handled by manufacturers. We could use another near Edmonton to be close to 7 CFSD. We spend a fortune shipping from the west to Montreal.


----------



## FJAG (25 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> Maintenance wise all we have is 202 workshop in Montreal, however most 3rd and 4th line is handled by manufacturers. We could use another near Edmonton to be close to 7 CFSD. We spend a fortune shipping from the west to Montreal.


Has anyone ever done a comprehensive study to see if we are obtaining the cost benefits that a manufacturer's 3rd and 4th line maintenance system was supposed to bring. I've read a few CRS reviews and Auditor General's reports that seem to indicate we are being badly served by these systems.

Personally, I dislike any logistics or maintenance system that we don't own and can't deploy.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:


> Has anyone ever done a comprehensive study to see if we are obtaining the cost benefits that a manufacturer's 3rd and 4th line maintenance system was supposed to bring. I've read a few CRS reviews and Auditor General's reports that seem to indicate we are being badly served by these systems.
> 
> Personally, I dislike any logistics or maintenance system that we don't own and can't deploy.
> 
> 🍻


I personally do not know, but if not then one should. Manufacturers have always been part of our 4th line,  but 1st to 3rd line is supposed to be deployable, and have the capability to do rebuilds of major assemblies like engines and transmissions. 4th line is back in Canada, either at 202 or Manufacturer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:


> Has anyone ever done a comprehensive study to see if we are obtaining the cost benefits that a manufacturer's 3rd and 4th line maintenance system was supposed to bring. I've read a few CRS reviews and Auditor General's reports that seem to indicate we are being badly served by these systems.
> 
> Personally, I dislike any logistics or maintenance system that we don't own and can't deploy.
> 
> 🍻


Our nation’s industrial base is, for bizarre and bureaucratic reasons, at more than triple arms length from our F Ech. As a result our supply chain is a disaster waiting to happen should we get into a real shooting war. 

The closer we are able to get the mill worker to the rifleman/gunner/trooper/sailor/pilot, the more effective and efficient we will be as a fighting force.

Seriously, we could contract with Amazon for 80-90% of our routine needs and have a 10-20% cushion we absorb for some critically important items.

Every big business in the world is getting rid of the middleman To be more customer centric, cost effective and timely. We could learn a lot from that.


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:


> Our nation’s industrial base is, for bizarre and bureaucratic reasons, at more than triple arms length from our F Ech. As a result our supply chain is a disaster waiting to happen should we get into a real shooting war.
> 
> The closer we are able to get the mill worker to the rifleman/gunner/trooper/sailor/pilot, the more effective and efficient we will be as a fighting force.
> 
> ...


With us replacing our transport/ refueling aircraft, we should buy extra, convert them for cargo only and have aircraft for the transport of parts, supplies, etc... quickly from depot to the various bases.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> With us replacing our transport/ refueling aircraft, we should buy extra, convert them for cargo only and have aircraft for the transport of parts, supplies, etc... quickly from depot to the various bases.


Now you're talking.... what's the cost of a fleet of transport aircraft versus hundreds of thousands of square feet of real estate, and thousands of troops and contractors? 

A fraction I would think.


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:


> Now you're talking.... what's the cost of a fleet of transport aircraft versus hundreds of thousands of square feet of real estate, and thousands of troops and contractors?
> 
> A fraction I would think.


Considering high priority units like SAR squadrons need things quickly and the auditor general did rip our supply system a new one earlier this year. I would say a new approach is needed. Having our own transport for cargo regularly would speed up our supply system, that said we would need to do a cost analysis to see if the benefits of doing our own transport out weigh the costs. Not just for air but ground transport as well.


----------



## MJP (26 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> With us replacing our transport/ refueling aircraft, we should buy extra, convert them for cargo only and have aircraft for the transport of parts, supplies, etc... quickly from depot to the various bases.


So what do we currently do for transportation of material from one depot to the other and the various support bases? Does everything need to fly which is a very expensive method of transporting material or are there more effective options? What is quickly and what determines the need for quickly? Who determines what is a priority for quickly?

How many more pilots do we need? Infra for these planes?

I am not an expert in supply chain and know we certainly need to fix some things, but also know that we don't necessarily need to have more CAF assets to solve some of our problems especially domestically. The whole point of the article is that the smashing of the ASU concept essentially put the same amount of work on less people. The Supply chain needs to be modernized no doubt we are employing an old old system but I would carefully weigh the need for more CAF assets to move material around


----------



## dapaterson (26 Dec 2020)

Indirect costs of CAF personnel are roughly double those of the public service (health care costs, early pension costs, military training costs...)  If we accept the assumption that public service personnel are more expensive than contracted personnel, then a model that grows CAF personnel or public service personnel in 2nd / 3rd / 4th line positions would be cost prohibitive - and, since the overall number of CAF personnel is limited, would detract from the "pointy end" of the CAF (unless we come up with better tools to optimize both the full and part-time components of the CAF).

How many "urgent" CAF requirements are driven by units unwilling to plan ahead, and dropping demands at the last minute?  How many delays are driven by incomplete work and lack of follow-up?


SIDEBAR: I recently read an AAR type document where there were multiple complaints about equipment and infrastructure.  When the  staff ('3 and '4  for equipment and Engr for infra) dug deep into the problems, they discovered that the whiners had never submitted UCRs for equipment or requests for infra to be fixed - they never bothered to figure out the process to request change or improvement.  How many CAF problems are driven by lazy leadership, unwilling to do the work?


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:


> Indirect costs of CAF personnel are roughly double those of the public service (health care costs, early pension costs, military training costs...)  If we accept the assumption that public service personnel are more expensive than contracted personnel, then a model that grows CAF personnel or public service personnel in 2nd / 3rd / 4th line positions would be cost prohibitive - and, since the overall number of CAF personnel is limited, would detract from the "pointy end" of the CAF (unless we come up with better tools to optimize both the full and part-time components of the CAF).
> 
> How many "urgent" CAF requirements are driven by units unwilling to plan ahead, and dropping demands at the last minute?  How many delays are driven by incomplete work and lack of follow-up?
> 
> ...


How many actually understand how the process works or how to fill it out? First UCR I ever did took awhile for me to get done because the CAF UCR instructions are read as a what the form is and when to use it, not how to fill out the form, and no one around knew either had to make a few phone calls.


----------



## FJAG (26 Dec 2020)

That touches on a key point. If people aren't using the proper system to make their life better than chances are that there is something wrong with the system: it's ease of use; training in its use; non responsiveness; etc. When I use Amazon to order an item, it's very easy to do (the forms practically fill themselves out); once ordered, Amazon feeds me continuous information on the status of my order and the "tracking" function lets me know it just left a Lexington, Kentucky transfer point etc. or that it is out locally on delivery or whatever.

Even more important, Amazon's fulfillment centres have fast moving frequently ordered items in stock locally in Mississauga. I frequently get something that I ordered before 4:00 pm delivered the next day. A "just-in-time" system works very well where there are well laid out production schedules like in a car plant where a particular item is sequenced several weeks ahead and will enter the chain on a given hour of a given day but simply doesn't work with a system where supplies or parts are required as a result of an unpredictable event or mechanical failure. Car manufacture is very much a push system while we mostly run a pull one. Even civilian car dealerships frequently need to back-order repair parts or transfer between dealers these days because local stocks just aren't sufficient as manufacturers and dealers try to tighten up on their own stock costs.

The same goes for people in the stream. We generally build an establishment with some type of work throughput equation (some are built better than others) and we have to expect that when the system takes people out of their establishment positions for ops postings or courses, or if we don't have a robust recruiting/training system to replace attrition vacancies, then output will naturally suffer. The days of having excess staffing to absorb personnel turbulence are long gone.

🍻


----------



## MJP (26 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> How many actually understand how the process works or how to fill it out? First UCR I ever did took awhile for me to get done because the CAF UCR instructions are read as a what the form is and when to use it, not how to fill out the form, and no one around knew either had to make a few phone calls.


The UCR system is weak at best as they generally need command involvement to get solved. It is an unwieldly system but has decent value for non-critical things( fix a manual error etc) However it is a side bar to the issue at hand in the article which is not even really supply chain related but really the dismantling of the ASU system for a weaker CDSG/base construct that left less people giving support to the same things


----------



## lenaitch (26 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> With us replacing our transport/ refueling aircraft, we should buy extra, convert them for cargo only and have aircraft for the transport of parts, supplies, etc... quickly from depot to the various bases.



How  many bases have functioning fixed-wing airfields anymore?  Nearby civilian strips perhaps but you'd still have the 'last mile' problem.


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:


> How  many bases have functioning fixed-wing airfields anymore?  Nearby civilian strips perhaps but you'd still have the 'last mile' problem.


Last mile could be handled by base transport and a cargo truck. No I am not necessarily suggesting this as a every day thing. High priority things like say a bulk order for say a SAR squadron needs a bunch of parts for their birds, a two week or more pick time I feel is unacceptable for a unit that is needing to be ready 24/7. 

Back to the topic at hand though of personal shortages, reading over the years on this forum. It almost sounds like being posted to a base is almost seem as a punishment due to the pay cut. I feel this needs to be looked as a factor needing change. Base postings if the financial effects could be evened out would be a positive, especially for say service member X who just had a kid and might want more time at home.


----------



## Quirky (26 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> It almost sounds like being posted to a base is almost seem as a punishment due to the pay cut.


Pardon my ignorance, but what is exactly "posted to a base"? I've never heard that term before as I thought all postings are to bases to begin with.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Dec 2020)

Posted to the staff of the base and not to a field unit on the base - for example, a MSE Op posted to Base Transport at Greenwood won't get Land Duty Allowance, while his wife, posted to 2 Svc Bn as a MSE Op, will get Land Duty Allowance.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Dec 2020)

I'm really struggling with their complaint that the base is only 3/4s staffed; short of a deploying ship that has pretty much been my experience at every posting I've been to on the support/training side. In fact, 3/4 stafffed would have been an improvement in most places, even with them being priority 1 or 2 workplaces.

Also, think they are specifically talking about jobs on Base/Plant operations, not just general 'postings on base', and doesn't include logistics or anything. Kind of hard to be sure as they are mixing a lot of jargon, but they also talk about alternate postings to training and support getting higher priority, and those are co-located with the actual base.

For example, in one of the Navy bases, you will have several training schools, the operational support, maintenance facility, log branch, transport and other functions, and a core base function responsible for the building maintenance and base security. I think it's the latter group they are talking about. 

Navy bases probably aren't a great example though, as I doubt we're poaching anyone from base ops to keep ships at sea, but generally reflected in what happens to people at the schools/FMFs or other shore postings in the area that get poached when units are short qualifications. Unless you get a posting outside the geographic area of Halifax/Esquimalt, the rubber band to get someone back to sea is pretty short. IF that's included, I would agree, but really hard to tell what they are specifically talking about as it is, once again, a poorly explained article on a military topic.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Dec 2020)

One way the private sector is increasing HR efficiency in the supply chain is through AI: 

What is Artificial Intelligence’s Role in the Supply Chain?​On track to reach $1.3 billion by 2024, the integration of artificial intelligence and supply chain management applications helps automate decision making, improve efficiencies, and better human resource utilization.



			StackPath


----------



## ballz (26 Dec 2020)

Posted to a "base" in this context means being posted to the actual formation or unit that is "the" Base. I.e. Being posted to 3 CDSB Edmonton vice being posted to 1 PPCLI (in Edmonton). While in both cases you might colloquially say "I'm posted to Edmonton," the former is a posting to the actual base while the latter is a posting to a field unit that just happens to be located on that base.

Internal audits have to stay within the scope of their audit parameters, which in this case was to evaluate the Base/Wing sustainment programs. So their comment that the bases are suffering from being bottom priority for manning is obvious but it's as far as they can go with their observations, they can't go as far as pointing out it is just an obvious symptom of the real problem... not enough resources to execute more and more tasks, some of which is not within our control and some of which is (our IT system, unmitigated ambition from senior leadership, etc.).


----------



## ballz (26 Dec 2020)

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm really struggling with their complaint that the base is only 3/4s staffed; short of a deploying ship that has pretty much been my experience at every posting I've been to on the support/training side. In fact, 3/4 stafffed would have been an improvement in most places, even with them being priority 1 or 2 workplaces.



They aren't "complaining," they are making an observation. Your reaction comes across as defensive, which the DND/CAF always does because it's awfully insecure about itself and being criticized about anything. And if you actually don't see 3/4 manning as an issue, perhaps that's just further support to their observation since it's become so engrained in our modus operandi that people don't even recognize it as a problem.

The article is pretty poor at explaining anything but it's worth reading the actual internal audit report, I wish we paid more attention to the ADM(RS) reports. https://www.canada.ca/en/department...ion-caf-bases-wings-sustainment-programs.html


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Dec 2020)

ballz said:


> They aren't "complaining," they are making an observation. Your reaction comes across as defensive, which the DND/CAF always does because it's awfully insecure about itself and being criticized about anything. And if you actually don't see 3/4 manning as an issue, perhaps that's just further support to their observation since it's become so engrained in our modus operandi that people don't even recognize it as a problem.
> 
> The article is pretty poor at explaining anything but it's worth reading the actual internal audit report, I wish we paid more attention to the ADM(RS) reports. https://www.canada.ca/en/department...ion-caf-bases-wings-sustainment-programs.html


Call my cynical but I see the recommendation to create working groups pop up a lot. Our problem is that people already in the organization don't see the problems, have a group of these people working on a solution might not be the best approach. For the civilian side of DND we should bring on a third party HR firm to evaluate the entire structure.


----------



## Furniture (26 Dec 2020)

So based on the responses here I think people are missing the real problem, as I see it, and talking about supply....

From what I got out of the story, bases are suffering from staffing shortages because operational units are pulling out the healthy pers for Ops, and Ops units are dumping their medically unfit to the base, creating problems with getting things done due to MELs. 

Why are Ops generating so many medically unfit pers? Should we be slowing the CAF Ops Tempo to allow our pers to get healthy, recruiting to catch up, and maybe match our tempo with our real staffing?


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Dec 2020)

WeatherdoG said:


> Why are Ops generating so many medically unfit pers? Should we be slowing the CAF Ops Tempo to allow our pers to get healthy, recruiting to catch up, and maybe match our tempo with our real staffing?



A Tac Pause isn't going to catch up with numbers. The pers being "dumped" on Base aren't on TCats with a broken leg. They're on PCat and chronically undeployable. Now, the CAF doesn't want to medically release people any more because of the bad press, so operational units have no choice but to push them to Base. What's your Recruiting Slogan going to be as well? "Join the CAF and travel the world (once we hit PML, otherwise enjoy sweeping floors and 3 months in Wainwright every year)!" As soon as you call a Tac Pause all those healthy folks are going to pull pin and find civilian employment elsewhere, you'd compound the problem with a higher ratio of fit to unfit and gutter the morale that's left in the CAF.


----------



## Furniture (26 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> A Tac Pause isn't going to catch up with numbers. The pers being "dumped" on Base aren't on TCats with a broken leg. They're on PCat and chronically undeployable. Now, the CAF doesn't want to medically release people any more because of the bad press, so operational units have no choice but to push them to Base. What's your Recruiting Slogan going to be as well? "Join the CAF and travel the world (once we hit PML, otherwise enjoy sweeping floors and 3 months in Wainwright every year)!" As soon as you call a Tac Pause all those healthy folks are going to pull pin and find civilian employment elsewhere, you'd compound the problem with a higher ratio of fit to unfit and gutter the morale that's left in the CAF.


Clearly the current system of pretending everything is good isn't working either. It doesn't have to be a complete pause, but we can slow down in some areas, without hurting our already broken recruiting system.

Also, TCAT pers do go base side on AP, so the healthy can deploy/train. The more pers working a "modified" schedule, the more the healthy pers posted to base units are required to pick up the slack. Then those pers burn out without ever having to go through the hassle of being deployed... They can just go straight from working on base full time, to being on a TCAT for 6+ months...

As pointed out in the story, postings to the base are supposed to be down time, but when you're doing the work of 2-3 pers while on "down time" from being operational, you don't get rest.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Dec 2020)

No one in the CAF gets rest. Every CO needs to check boxes to get promoted, Bde Comds need to push "new capabilities"... Troops are doing 6 month predeployment training to go to Latvia, to then turn around and do the exact same ranges for 6 months over again for "readiness" training. Except they spent 4 of those 6 months before they deployed sitting in the field away from their families. We wonder why people quit...


----------



## Furniture (27 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> No one in the CAF gets rest. Every CO needs to check boxes to get promoted, Bde Comds need to push "new capabilities"... Troops are doing 6 month predeployment training to go to Latvia, to then turn around and do the exact same ranges for 6 months over again for "readiness" training. Except they spent 4 of those 6 months before they deployed sitting in the field away from their families. We wonder why people quit...


People quit, except the ones sitting at home on their third or fourth well timed TCAT... filling the billets the deployers should be in. 

Get your helmets on, it's story time. 

I spent three of my five years on the Left Coast being promised a shore posting for a year or two for rest, to only be told you're needed on a ship deploying.  The first two years were split between a deployment, and WUPS on PRO. Needless to say, by the time I left I was close to quitting the CAF at 20... I'm now come around to a slightly modified "I'll quit when you annoy me again".


----------



## csssupportmb (27 Dec 2020)

Would you say pre-deployment training is still 3 to 4 months at a base?  I've heard stories of reservists heading to Edmonton & showing up, doing lots of PT & no real training values for weeks on end.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> A Tac Pause isn't going to catch up with numbers. The pers being "dumped" on Base aren't on TCats with a broken leg. They're on PCat and chronically undeployable. Now, the CAF doesn't want to medically release people any more because of the bad press, so operational units have no choice but to push them to Base. What's your Recruiting Slogan going to be as well? "Join the CAF and travel the world (once we hit PML, otherwise enjoy sweeping floors and 3 months in Wainwright every year)!" As soon as you call a Tac Pause all those healthy folks are going to pull pin and find civilian employment elsewhere, you'd compound the problem with a higher ratio of fit to unfit and gutter the morale that's left in the CAF.


As I recall, once upon a time , a CO couldn't just 'dump' people on someone else just because these people were perceived as a burden of some kind. 

They had a responsibility to make sure that everyone was 'looked after' in a way that made sure unit readiness was balanced with personnel needs. 

CO's in units with high turnover rates were therefore looked upon as 'not very good leaders'. 

As a result, CO's had quite  bit of of independence and discretion in the way they dealt with people: from putting them in the battalion jail for up to 60 days, to giving everyone extra leave for a couple of weeks. Alot of resources could be called in by the CO to help, as well.

Maybe we need to give CO's back some of those decision making powers, and make suitable resources available to them, and then hold them accountable/ recognize them for the good leadership that results in low turnover rates. Along the way, we might also make the job of a CO more attractive, and less of a 'ladder rung' for career climbing one, two and three stars.

And now I think I've officially deviated from the theme of this thread


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:


> As I recall, once upon a time , a CO couldn't just 'dump' people on someone else just because these people were perceived as a burden of some kind.



Once upon a time. Back in the '70s - yeah it's going to be one of those stories - we had things a bit better. 

Firstly, there were about twice as many of us in four brigades. One brigade was permanently in Germany so while they had a lot of exercises they went home to the family after only three weeks away. Secondly, the only "ops" tour was Cyprus which was a battalion (not a whole battle group) and didn't need much in the way of predeployment training. Recruiting was better (and for several years afterwards as we downsized, it wasn't even necessary) 

We still had manning problems though. My troop which should have had three gun sergeants had none because, while still in the regiment, none of the three were medically capable of field duty so they were respectively: the NCO i/c hockey rink; the regimental duty sergeant and the regimental canteen sergeant (none of which, as you can imagine, were actual establishment positions but buckshee hidey-holes). Pretty much every troop in the regiment was in the same shape (we even had a regimental graphic arts sergeant) The result was my guns were run by master bombardiers who, at the time, earned a whole five bucks a month more than their bombardier (thanks Hellyer) gun numbers. That led to some lovely post-exercise smokers I'll tell you. 

The lesson here: there never were any good old days, just different old days.

🙂


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2020)

I got news for you all:

It ain't going to get better, it's only going to get worse.  Why?

1.  We are being continuously subjected to the pressures of defence Inflation which is eroding what we get for our money.  We spend slightly more and get far less, year after year.

2.  The gene pool the CAF has recruited from historically is drying up.

3.  The pressures of multi-generational Government mismanagement are finally bearing down on the organization.

The CAF has been staring at the fiscal cliff for a couple of decades now.  All of what is happening has been predicted by numerous reports put out by many people, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer who said years ago that our present force posture and force composition was unsustainable.

I have just accepted this as a fact.  Reasons I stay in the CAF have changed as well.  I'm on my second trade, don't give a damn about promotions or the latest "leading change" idea coming out of some Senior Officer's mouth.

I enjoy travelling, testing myself physically and mentally, the occasional adrenaline rush I get from time to time and just hanging out with the boys all sleep deprived and knackered from the latest and greatest thing we did.

The fact they pay me to do this is just a bonus.


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I got news for you all:
> 
> It ain't going to get better, it's only going to get worse.  Why?
> 
> ...


It does appear our chickens are coming home to roost, the writing has been on the wall but maybe that's why we put the army as CDS so much, they know we can't read.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> It does appear our chickens are coming home to roost, the writing has been on the wall but maybe that's why we put the army as CDS so much, they know we can't read.


Crayons do taste delicious.  The reality is nothing is going to change.  Anyone in the CAF with any sort of ability to make a change has been rewarded and benefitted financially and personally from our present system.

Why would someone who has been rewarded change anything?  We spend Millions of dollars training people to do a job and then have them spend very little time actually doing said job.  

It's all about pushing people through to get the management checks in the box so they can receive their next promotion.  The organization they may be leading is a paper tiger but it briefs real well and looks good on paper!


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Dec 2020)

ballz said:


> They aren't "complaining," they are making an observation. Your reaction comes across as defensive, which the DND/CAF always does because it's awfully insecure about itself and being criticized about anything. And if you actually don't see 3/4 manning as an issue, perhaps that's just further support to their observation since it's become so engrained in our modus operandi that people don't even recognize it as a problem.
> 
> The article is pretty poor at explaining anything but it's worth reading the actual internal audit report, I wish we paid more attention to the ADM(RS) reports. https://www.canada.ca/en/department...ion-caf-bases-wings-sustainment-programs.html


Yeah, you're right, came across as defensive. My bad; wasn't my intent, but guess my point was it sucks everywhere, so pers issues at the bases are a 'symptom' vice a self contained problem. 70% filled billets is the new 100% filled, and from personal experience usually the working groups/consultants that look into it result in changes like getting rid of the empty seats, redistributing the responsibilities to who is left, and maybe adding extra resources on a part time 'matrix' assignment. So a lot of shuffling of the deck chairs with no real fix to the problem.

Thanks for sharing the audit, that was much clearer. Didn't realize the ADM(IE) change, but the example of the CFB Halifax gym was a good one for it causing issues; that really blew up on the BComd when it wasn't their swim lane (guess it's a good example of not their responsibility but it's their problem). Also kind of reinforced that reporters that specialize in a topic generally don't know what they are talking about, which is good to keep in mind when reading anything.

No real suggestions here, but my gut feeling is that the push for 'more teeth less tail' generally underestimates how much 'tail' is required to maintain the teeth we want across a geographically massive area, as well as a full suite of complex, modern equipment. Logistics are a lot easier if your entire military in a place the size of PEI, and procurement, maintenance and support is much simpler if you don't have a blue water navy or an air force.


----------



## quadrapiper (27 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> A Tac Pause isn't going to catch up with numbers. The pers being "dumped" on Base aren't on TCats with a broken leg. They're on PCat and chronically undeployable. Now, the CAF doesn't want to medically release people any more because of the bad press, so operational units have no choice but to push them to Base. What's your Recruiting Slogan going to be as well? "Join the CAF and travel the world (once we hit PML, otherwise enjoy sweeping floors and 3 months in Wainwright every year)!" As soon as you call a Tac Pause all those healthy folks are going to pull pin and find civilian employment elsewhere, you'd compound the problem with a higher ratio of fit to unfit and gutter the morale that's left in the CAF.


Would a more vigorous, even less member-needs/wants focused, posting approach for PCat types be worth looking at, to balance the ways in which they're otherwise less useful to the CAF?


Navy_Pete said:


> No real suggestions here, but my gut feeling is that the push for 'more teeth less tail' generally underestimates how much 'tail' is required to maintain the teeth we want across a geographically massive area, as well as a full suite of complex, modern equipment. Logistics are a lot easier if your entire military in a place the size of PEI, and procurement, maintenance and support is much simpler if you don't have a blue water navy or an air force.


Wonder how many people suggesting tail trimming are thinking of the oft-mentioned ever-growing HQ issue, versus non-"teeth" elements with actual, identifiable relevance to whatever the teeth are getting up to?


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Dec 2020)

quadrapiper said:


> Would a more vigorous, even less member-needs/wants focused, posting approach for PCat types be worth looking at, to balance the ways in which they're otherwise less useful to the CAF?



Considering members on PCat with severe mental health issues are being refused postings closer to family, I doubt the CAF will ever do that. I had a good friend suffering so much that that he wasn't able to even go to work, but he wasn't allowed to be posted back to his home (he was on IR), so he had to sit in an empty apartment away from his wife in between medical appointments...


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> Considering members on PCat with severe mental health issues are being refused postings closer to family, I doubt the CAF will ever do that. I had a good friend suffering so much that that he wasn't able to even go to work, but he wasn't allowed to be posted back to his home (he was on IR), so he had to sit in an empty apartment away from his wife in between medical appointments...


Sounds about right, I know a former Comms researcher who was bounced around like a hot potato between postings, tasks, courses and tours to the point he told his career manager that the only way he would do PLQ was if he got a stable posting afterwords that kept him home or he likely would loose his marriage. Fast forward a year and he was out, can easily piece together what happened. I understand some trades are short staffed but we also need to be realistic with what we can accomplish with what we have.


----------



## Quirky (28 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> members on PCat with severe mental health issues are being refused postings closer to family,



Are they being refused or is it because there aren’t positions available? There needs to be a balance between postings for medical reasons and filling positions. Another thing to consider is the precedent that’s set when someone is given what they want because of “medical issues” (people do abuse the system).

In the end joining the military means moving around, some trades do it more than others, you’ll never get a posting location or unit that’s going to be 100% suitable. Cold lake, Shilo, Wainwright and even Comox have their issues, you’ll always find someone who hates it. It’s like me joining the Army, I hate any sort of field or camping environment, so why would it be the CAFs problem to cater to my needs? At some point a person needs to take responsibility for their career and life decisions and make it better for themselves. Posted to Cold Lake and have a spouse that can’t find work in their related profession? Those are hard personal choices to make and the CM won’t give you what you want.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Dec 2020)

Quirky said:


> Are they being refused or is it because there aren’t positions available? There needs to be a balance between postings for medical reasons and filling positions. Another thing to consider is the precedent that’s set when someone is given what they want because of “medical issues” (people do abuse the system).



Transition Center to Transition Center, absolutely 0 reason to not post the member back home, especially in the specific case I'm talking about where the member was on IR and it not only made medical sense, but financial sense for the CAF to do it.


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> Transition Center to Transition Center, absolutely 0 reason to not post the member back home, especially in the specific case I'm talking about where the member was on IR and it not only made medical sense, but financial sense for the CAF to do it.


Agreed, if a medical professional has stated for the members well being they should be posted home for compassionate/medical reasons,  it should be done.


----------



## Furniture (28 Dec 2020)

Quirky said:


> Are they being refused or is it because there aren’t positions available? There needs to be a balance between postings for medical reasons and filling positions. Another thing to consider is the precedent that’s set when someone is given what they want because of “medical issues” (people do abuse the system).
> 
> In the end joining the military means moving around, some trades do it more than others, you’ll never get a posting location or unit that’s going to be 100% suitable. Cold lake, Shilo, Wainwright and even Comox have their issues, you’ll always find someone who hates it. It’s like me joining the Army, I hate any sort of field or camping environment, so why would it be the CAFs problem to cater to my needs? At some point a person needs to take responsibility for their career and life decisions and make it better for themselves. Posted to Cold Lake and have a spouse that can’t find work in their related profession? Those are hard personal choices to make and the CM won’t give you what you want.


Postings are a separate issue, though bad, frequent, or unexpected postings can cause problems that lead to bases being short staffed.

We aren't recruiting enough people to make up for those getting out, so some billets will be left unfilled because there are no pers to fill them. Those billets are generally the "base" billets in support roles. On top of that, at least on the RCN side, pers get posted to base billets because they are medically unfit to work on ship. Those pers are usually unfit for normal work routines, so the healthy pers posted to the base end up working more/harder to compensate for those medically unfit, and for the empty billets. This often leads to people getting burnt out, and becoming medically unfit themselves, or in extreme cases leaving the CAF. 

The CA and RCAF have similar problems with "downtime" positions being filled by medically unfit pers, and the healthy making up for it. If we were at 100% staffing it would be less of an issue, but when some trades are in the 80-90% staffing level before MELs are accounted for, it is an issue.

The CAF is not in the position to be driving good members away with bad personnel management, yet due to policy and custom we are doing just that many times. The example of a member's spouse not finding work at their new location, likely means the member will be looking at getting out or going IR if their spouse's work is a career. The CAF is still working on the idea that members have careers, and spouses might have a part time job. That is often not the case anymore, and we need better solutions to deal with the needs of those members, while not screwing over single members(which is often the current solution).


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Dec 2020)

Quirky said:


> In the end joining the military means moving around, some trades do it more than others, you’ll never get a posting location or unit that’s going to be 100% suitable. Cold lake, Shilo, Wainwright and even Comox have their issues, you’ll always find someone who hates it. It’s like me joining the Army, I hate any sort of field or camping environment, so why would it be the CAFs problem to cater to my needs? At some point a person needs to take responsibility for their career and life decisions and make it better for themselves. Posted to Cold Lake and have a spouse that can’t find work in their related profession? Those are hard personal choices to make and the CM won’t give you what you want.



Great post. 

The Canadian Forces area on reddit makes for some pretty interesting observations. 

I've been lurking there for a while just reading posts and I'm continuously surprised at how many new members appear to:
-have joined the CAF with pre-existing mental health issues
-self diagnosis mental health issues; and
-think it's ****ing bullshit that the CAF would have the audacity to post them, especially if they don't want to which they feel is harassment/trying to murder them.

Not everyone is like that and their regular members often call them out for it, but it's still surprising (to me) at how many have joined the CAF with those issues/views. 

The MH is another interesting one. 
Stuff like 
"I had severe anxiety and depression as a teen and I joined the CAF and have been in for a year now and they want me to goto the field but that will negatively impact my mental health, what do I do?" 

Are our recruiters not managing people's expectations? 

"Hurts my mental health" seems to have became a mantra.


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:


> Great post.
> 
> The Canadian Forces area on reddit makes for some pretty interesting observations.
> 
> ...


My question to that is what kind of mental health screening is CFRG doing?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> Transition Center to Transition Center, absolutely 0 reason to not post the member back home, especially in the specific case I'm talking about where the member was on IR and it not only made medical sense, but financial sense for the CAF to do it.


This is a great post and I don't know why the CAF doesn't exercise this option.  I have never seen it exercised and I think it comes down to not wanting to pay.

IMO one of the big issues is our lack of recourse should members no longer be able to serve. They will go through a long and drawn our Administrative Review process and then release the member. 

Any services the member requires then becomes the purview of VAC.  It's a messy system and doesn't really set the member up for success.

The big issue is that we promise everyone a lifelong career in the CAF when the reality is many shouldn't serve a full career for various reasons.  We do an absolutely terrible job transitioning these members to civilian life though.  We've also made it more difficult financially for these individuals to leave, e.g. getting rid of severance pay, increasing time required to collect an immediate annuity, etc. 

We've also made decisions like deliberately choosing not to certify members with trades training by providing them with red seals, etc in a flawed attempt to increase retention by preventing them from seeking outside employment. 

This last point is particularly stupid and provides poor value for money to our tax payer. Especially when you consider that we have a chronic shortage of qualified tradesmen in this Country and many of our soldiers, sailors and aviators who may not be able to serve anymore would be valued employees elsewhere.

I think they should bring back severance pay. This would provide another cushion for members that need to be released from the service.  It would certainly be cheaper than holding them in a position they can't be employed in for years on end.



MilEME09 said:


> My question to that is what kind of mental health screening is CFRG doing?


The CAF is no longer allowed to deliberately screen for mental health issues as it's a violation of the applicant's human rights.

They are not members of the CAF yet; therefore, the CAF has no right to know their medical issues.

Any information they do provide is on a voluntary basis.  We give a basic medical but that doesn't tell a whole lot.  We don't even screen people for fitness anymore.

What kind of fighting force doesn't screen applicants for actual fitness?


----------



## FJAG (29 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> What kind of fighting force doesn't screen applicants for actual fitness?



The same one that has hardly any tanks, artillery or air defence etc. I.e one that doesn't take "fighting" as one of its primary missions.

Seriously though on the terms of service issue, I've always been opposed to the concept of indefinite service and voluntary releases on six months notice (or immediate for reservists). I much prefer a system of short terms of service that must be served out in full combined with re-enlistment bonuses/incentives and education and severance benefits for those who complete their terms satisfactorily. It provides more certainty of force strength from year to year, aids in deciding on annual recruitment requirements, allows the individual better second career planning and provides an easier mechanism for releasing unsatisfactory personnel who no longer meet bona fide occupational requirements. I'm all in favour of that for reservists as well with specified annual mandatory training requirements (of a duration and at times which balance family and civilian employer obligations/responsibilities)

🍻


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:


> The same one that has hardly any tanks, artillery or air defence etc. I.e one that doesn't take fighting as one of its primary tasks..
> 
> Seriously though on the terms of service issue, I've always been opposed to the concept of indefinite service and voluntary releases on six months notice (or immediate for reservists). I much prefer a system of short terms of service that must be served out in full combined with re-enlistment bonuses/incentives and education and severance benefits for those who complete their terms satisfactorily. It provides more certainty of force strength from year to year, aids in deciding on annual recruitment requirements, allows the individual better second career planning and provides an easier mechanism for releasing unsatisfactory personnel who no longer meet bona fide occupational requirements. I'm all in favour of that for reservists as well with specified annual mandatory training requirements (of a duration and at times which balance family and civilian employer obligations/responsibilities)
> 
> 🍻


I completely agree.  I think IE 25 is possibly the stupidest thing the Military could issue for a contract. 

Who in there right mind knows how able bodied or capable someone will be in 25 years?

I won't sign an IE 25, I'm on an 8 year CE atm with 5 1/2 years left.  It provides better options for me and gives me a clear exit path should I opt to leave. 

I can't imagine in a decade I'll be very able bodied relative to now so I don't know why the  CAF would want to keep me for another 25 years?


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This is a great post and I don't know why the CAF doesn't exercise this option.  I have never seen it exercised and I think it comes down to not wanting to pay.
> 
> IMO one of the big issues is our lack of recourse should members no longer be able to serve. They will go through a long and drawn our Administrative Review process and then release the member.
> 
> ...



I think you hit the nail on the head here and I'll circle back to the original topic. The reason Base units are stuck with chronically undeployable/PCat/TCat pers, is because the CAF will not release someone who is obviously medically unfit and will not return to medical fitness. The reason the CAF is forced to do that, is because of the absolute dog's breakfast in getting VAC to support a releasing member and members have been released medically before without any benefits starting on Day 1 of their first civilian day. It's criminal how poorly VAC does its job.

So we're stuck in a Catch 22. CAF member injured and no longer able to work in a military environment, but we can't release them to open up a PY for a fighting fit soldier/sailor/airperson because we rightfully owe it to the member to keep them financially/medically/emotionally stable until they can transition out.



Humphrey Bogart said:


> I completely agree.  I think IE 25 is possibly the stupidest thing the Military could issue for a contract.
> 
> Who in there right mind knows how able bodied or capable someone will be in 25 years?
> 
> I can't imagine in a decade I'll be very able bodied relative to now so I don't know why the  CAF would want to keep me for another 25 years?


This is a great point. We hear all the time (especially true in the broken pilot training stream) about how we need to retain everyone. Our whole training system is designed to fill an entire 3 year BE just to get someone to OFP because we incorrectly assume everyone wants/is able/is capable of serving 25+ years. This would require a complete rework to our contracts system, and seeing how change adverse the CAF is, I don't think it'll ever happen.


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This is a great post and I don't know why the CAF doesn't exercise this option.  I have never seen it exercised and I think it comes down to not wanting to pay.
> 
> IMO one of the big issues is our lack of recourse should members no longer be able to serve. They will go through a long and drawn our Administrative Review process and then release the member.
> 
> ...


So we can do a medical screening including vision, hearing, etc... to make sure you are physically fit to serve but doing a mental health evaluation on a candidate is a human rights violation? That makes zero sense to me and puts people in danger. I saw it first hand on a BMQ Land, I was supporting, candidate was clearly having mental health issues but staff had nothing they could do. When staff are wearing full plates on a C9 range because they are worried about a candidate but can't remove the person from the course, we have a problem.


----------



## medicineman (29 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We've also made decisions like deliberately choosing not to certify members with trades training by providing them with red seals, etc in a flawed attempt to increase retention by preventing them from seeking outside employment.
> 
> This last point is particularly stupid and provides poor value for money to our tax payer. Especially when you consider that we have a chronic shortage of qualified tradesmen in this Country and many of our soldiers, sailors and aviators who may not be able to serve anymore would be valued employees elsewhere.


There is a certain irony to this - having those qualifications allows the member to moonlight and add to their professional development by seeing things they wouldn't otherwise see.  Much like the Maintenance of Clinical Competency Programs for MO's, PA's, Med Techs, RN's, etc in the Medical Branch - you get to see and deal with things beyond youngish, healthyish folks.  When you get sent to Ungabungaluktutuk and have to deal with a different population that may not be healthy, you are prepared and not constantly on your rear foot trying to play catch-up.


Humphrey Bogart said:


> The CAF is no longer allowed to deliberately screen for mental health issues as it's a violation of the applicant's human rights.
> 
> They are not members of the CAF yet; therefore, the CAF has no right to know their medical issues.



When did that change?  The SCC long ago upheld the right of the CAF to screen people out based on medical reasons as a bona fide job requirement.  One of the issues I will say though about screening out mental health issues is training to obtain a proper medical/psych history is different at a 6A Medical Sgt's level than a PA or MO would have.  You learn on psych rotations to ask questions in a certain way, observe and listen to behaviours and speech patterns and to "push buttons" as it were to see if certain responses are elicited.  I managed to catch several people with personality disorders that either self-selected out or were screened out, caught some early sczhizophrenics, etc.  Enrollment medicals are no different from any other occupational health medical for someone being hired to work in a remote location or with any safety sensitive job (pilot, law enforcement, truck driver, etc) - if you want the job, you voluntarily submit to examination.  Incidentally, I've also refused to screen out people based on a preconceived bias by a Recruiter - they wanted me to fail them medically when there wasn't a reason to, and placed things squarely back on their laps to do their jobs based on the applicant's CFAT scores and interview.

MM


----------



## FJAG (29 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> So we can do a medical screening including vision, hearing, etc... to make sure you are physically fit to serve but doing a mental health evaluation on a candidate is a human rights violation? That makes zero sense to me and puts people in danger. I saw it first hand on a BMQ Land, I was supporting, candidate was clearly having mental health issues but staff had nothing they could do. When staff are wearing full plates on a C9 range because they are worried about a candidate but can't remove the person from the course, we have a problem.


I tend to agree with you. I don't know what legal opinions there might be circulating within DND on this issue, but the Canadian Human Rights Code provides the following:


> 3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.





> *7* It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
> 
> (a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or
> (b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,
> on a prohibited ground of discrimination.





> *15* (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if
> 
> (a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;


I see fundamentally no difference between screening a person for a physical characteristic or a mental characteristic as long as the characteristic creates a conflict with a bona fide occupational requirement. Obviously we need to determine which characteristic in either category is a limiting one but that's really no different from what we've been doing before.

🍻


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The CAF is no longer allowed to deliberately screen for mental health issues as it's a violation of the applicant's human rights.



Medicineman said it better (_and responded quicker_) and from a more recent clinician POV.  This paper from a CFC student (a GDMO) may be of interest about the process, pros/cons, and some suggestions for improvement. 

UNDECLARED MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS AMONG CAF APPLICANTS: CAN APPLICANT MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING BE IMPROVED?
https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/318/305/brockway.pdf


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head here and I'll circle back to the original topic. The reason Base units are stuck with chronically undeployable/PCat/TCat pers, is because the CAF will not release someone who is obviously medically unfit and will not return to medical fitness. The reason the CAF is forced to do that, is because of the absolute dog's breakfast in getting VAC to support a releasing member and members have been released medically before without any benefits starting on Day 1 of their first civilian day. It's criminal how poorly VAC does its job.
> 
> So we're stuck in a Catch 22. CAF member injured and no longer able to work in a military environment, but we can't release them to open up a PY for a fighting fit soldier/sailor/airperson because we rightfully owe it to the member to keep them financially/medically/emotionally stable until they can transition out.
> 
> ...


VAC isn't structured to serve the Modern Veteran.  It was setup and it's programs were conceptualized to serve a type of Veteran that no longer exists.  The entire organization needs to be torn down and restarted from scratch.  The amount of horror stories I read everyday on social media and elsewhere about VAC is damning but no longer surprising.

My big takeaway from all of this is that nobody is going to help anyone of us when the chips are down.  It's up to us to help ourselves out or help other Veterans out.  I don't think any of these existing organizations do really anything particularly worthwhile for us either.

We basically need an entirely new organization with it's own mandate.  A club so to speak, like the RCL, but one that actually serves the modern Veteran and doesn't just suck our money away.

I am envisioning a club that operates as a professionally managed investment fund of sorts.  The purpose of this fund would be to make money but then use that money to better the lives of its membership.  Members would receive dividends, a portion of profits would be reinvested and a portion would be set aside to pay for veterans programs and initiatives. I would much rather pay in to something like this than the mess dues we presently pay.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Dec 2020)

medicineman said:


> There is a certain irony to this - having those qualifications allows the member to moonlight and add to their professional development by seeing things they wouldn't otherwise see.  Much like the Maintenance of Clinical Competency Programs for MO's, PA's, Med Techs, RN's, etc in the Medical Branch - you get to see and deal with things beyond youngish, healthyish folks.  When you get sent to Ungabungaluktutuk and have to deal with a different population that may not be healthy, you are prepared and not constantly on your rear foot trying to play catch-up.
> 
> 
> When did that change?  The SCC long ago upheld the right of the CAF to screen people out based on medical reasons as a bona fide job requirement.  One of the issues I will say though about screening out mental health issues is training to obtain a proper medical/psych history is different at a 6A Medical Sgt's level than a PA or MO would have.  You learn on psych rotations to ask questions in a certain way, observe and listen to behaviours and speech patterns and to "push buttons" as it were to see if certain responses are elicited.  I managed to catch several people with personality disorders that either self-selected out or were screened out, caught some early sczhizophrenics, etc.  Enrollment medicals are no different from any other occupational health medical for someone being hired to work in a remote location or with any safety sensitive job (pilot, law enforcement, truck driver, etc) - if you want the job, you voluntarily submit to examination.  Incidentally, I've also refused to screen out people based on a preconceived bias by a Recruiter - they wanted me to fail them medically when there wasn't a reason to, and placed things squarely back on their laps to do their jobs based on the applicant's CFAT scores and interview.
> ...


Maybe I'm totally off base with this as I'm drawing my information from when I worked at a certain training institution as well as friends who worked for CFRG.  

I was told we weren't really allowed to screen for mental health issues any longer.  At least not in a way that would actually reveal underlying issues.  We don't screen for fitness so I don't find it particularly difficult to envision us not really doing a vigorous mental health assessment.  Perhaps I am totally off base though?  Given that you and BA are actual med pers, I probably am.  Maybe we are allowed and are just bending the rules?  Who knows.

They do make you take the TSD-PI, which apparently is supposed to assess your personality suitability for military service.  



Blackadder1916 said:


> Medicineman said it better (_and responded quicker_) and from a more recent clinician POV.  This paper from a CFC student (a GDMO) may be of interest about the process, pros/cons, and some suggestions for improvement.
> 
> UNDECLARED MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS AMONG CAF APPLICANTS: CAN APPLICANT MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING BE IMPROVED?
> https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/318/305/brockway.pdf


Let me read it and get back to you.  Thanks for the share.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> Transition Center to Transition Center, absolutely 0 reason to not post the member back home, especially in the specific case I'm talking about where the member was on IR and it not only made medical sense, but financial sense for the CAF to do it.


From my understanding one of the issues is one transition center may let a member run rampant, get away with anything and not hold them accountable. The other transition center doesn't want to take them on and deal with their unchecked behavior, or put their staff in a position to bear the brunt of it.


----------



## medicineman (29 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Maybe I'm totally off base with this as I'm drawing my information from when I worked at a certain training institution as well as friends who worked for CFRG.
> 
> I was told we weren't really allowed to screen for mental health issues any longer.  At least not in a way that would actually reveal underlying issues.  We don't screen for fitness so I don't find it particularly difficult to envision us not really doing a vigorous mental health assessment.  Perhaps I am totally off base though?  Given that you and BA are actual med pers, I probably am.  Maybe we are allowed and are just bending the rules?  Who knows.
> 
> ...


My eldest did apparently have to do the personality test as part of the testing. 

As for the training institution you speak of, I worked there in a clinical capacity - yeah, there were a lot of folks that obviously ticked the boxes they wanted people to see and then managed to get through with a free degree on permanent TCats  OR were incredibly messy administrative burdens...and or both in a few cases.  

I'm speaking from my time doing recruit and later, PHE medicals on people.  Funny how I could tell (and would confront people) when it was obvious they were not reading what they were ticking Yes/No to on the questionnaires.  

I personally think that people should provide a copy of their provincial pharmacy dispensing information and their medical records if applying - having that chart would actually speed up some of the RMO backlog, as what's happened and is happening could be followed in the notes.  Drug dispensing also shows what they've been getting, duration, time last filled, etc.   It's like the drug use information sheets - it's almost like people don't realize we were reading that with their questionnaires...much like the person in the ER that tries telling me they haven't had "X or Y" meds when I have a copy of their provincial dispensing record, and often a record of their past ER visits.  It would make life easier for both the applicant and the system IMHO.



Blackadder1916 said:


> Medicineman said it better (_and responded quicker_) and from a more recent clinician POV.  This paper from a CFC student (a GDMO) may be of interest about the process, pros/cons, and some suggestions for improvement.
> 
> UNDECLARED MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS AMONG CAF APPLICANTS: CAN APPLICANT MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING BE IMPROVED?
> https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/318/305/brockway.pdf



Interesting paper - and funnily enough, we shared ideas.  

MM


----------



## blacktriangle (29 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> VAC isn't structured to serve the Modern Veteran.  It was setup and it's programs were conceptualized to serve a type of Veteran that no longer exists.  The entire organization needs to be torn down and restarted from scratch.  The amount of horror stories I read everyday on social media and elsewhere about VAC is damning but no longer surprising.
> 
> My big takeaway from all of this is that nobody is going to help anyone of us when the chips are down.  It's up to us to help ourselves out or help other Veterans out.  I don't think any of these existing organizations do really anything particularly worthwhile for us either.
> 
> ...


Great post. I like the idea of the professionally managed investment fund. You should write that idea up. I know the CAF has a pension, but as others have said, not everyone can or should make it to that point. I think I read somewhere on here that the average veteran serves for 14 years? I would have much rather my mess dues been invested all these years, or at the least donated to a military/veteran's cause that isn't a sub-par drinking establishment.

And on the topic of burn-out, I can definitely see it. Lots of people never seemed to be able to deploy, go on ex, or work shift schedules. This meant others had to pick up the slack disproportionately (often with little or no recognition), and eventually were no longer able or willing to put up with it so others could live the good life. In my experience, many of the people that avoided all the "military" stuff are still in...it was the other group of people who ended up releasing or being released. And the cycle continues, or so I'm told...


----------



## dapaterson (29 Dec 2020)

Fourteen years is based on a seven percent attrition rate.  Years ago when I was deep into the data, there were four main exit points in the Reg F.

First, at the end of their initial three year engagement.  People moving on after their first contract.  (With variable initial engagements, this is more difficult to suss out of the data without access to the whole, massive dataset; I was only looking at releases by years of service).

Second, at the nine year point.  Most officers were brought in on nine year terms and there was a separation pay at that point.

Third was at the twenty year point, when folks were entitled to an unreduced 40% annuity.

Fourth was at the 25/27 year point for NCMs/officers respectively.


In a perfect world, Terms of Service are gates to keep the institution moving, keeping those the institution wishes to retain and providing support for others to leave.  Retention should be selective - in some ways, the more desperate someone is to stay in, the more reluctant the CAF should be to keep them.  If someone has no other options, are they really the best and brightest that the CAF wants in its more senior positions?


----------



## dimsum (29 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:


> Retention should be selective - in some ways, the more desperate someone is to stay in, the more reluctant the CAF should be to keep them.


If we are to change mindset to that model, we'll have to made SCAN seminars mandatory (which I'm sure everyone will love) and/or institute the US-style "up or out".  I'm not a big fan of "up or out" since some people are really good at their job and should stay there.  

Also, I'd feel sorry for anyone (recruiters, especially) trying to explain the change to the public.  I can already imagine people saying "the military will send you to war, then fire you."  Hell, they do it now.


----------



## dimsum (29 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:


> Logistik Unicorp for DEU items is a success story, I'd like to see it expanded for any next to skin items and field/sailing/flying uniforms as well.


To a point, I agree.  However, deployed units should also have some operational uniforms and stuff as well, in case of wear/tear or unforeseen issues. 

At home though?  Get your uniforms issued via Logistik.


----------



## Quirky (29 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:


> The Canadian Forces area on reddit makes for some pretty interesting observations.


Reddit posts offer a different perspective and I get the feeling many members are bitter and think the CF owes them something. The issues that plague the CF are no secret and have been around since I joined in the early 2000s. PLD that makes no sense, decade-long postings in isolated locations, broken VAC system etc etc. Even with all these known problems people still joined and they are shocked when they see it first hand. I did over a decade in a place I didn’t particularly like, but I made the best of it and didn’t come into the unit bringing everyone else down with negativity. Releasing was always in the back of my mind but the pros, for me anyway, outweighed the negatives.

Change in the CF doesn’t happen overnight and considering what’s going on in the real world, having a guaranteed paycheque despite any lockdown is huge. I take all our problems with a grain of salt as it’s essentially irrelevant unless you are in a position to enact change. Life is too short to care about things you have zero control over.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Dec 2020)

dimsum said:


> To a point, I agree.  However, deployed units should also have some operational uniforms and stuff as well, in case of wear/tear or unforeseen issues.
> 
> At home though?  Get your uniforms issued via Logistik.


That's what I meant. We could significantly reduce the lines at Base Clothing (and move those MMTs into more critical roles) by providing most dress of the day uniforms via Logistik Unicorp. There would then be a higher level mechanism (perhaps at CJOC J4) as you suggest to have operational stock pushed to theatres as part of the Activation Team and sustainment flights.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2020)

Quirky said:


> Reddit posts offer a different perspective and I get the feeling many members are bitter and think the CF owes them something.


Agreed. The weird thing is it seems like people are _joining _the CAF like that. They're bitter already, have this expectation that tall CoC's are unsupportive garbage, they're going to get PTSD on their first deployment and their upcoming VAC claims will be delayed or denied. Mind blowing.


----------



## dimsum (30 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:


> Agreed. The weird thing is it seems like people are _joining _the CAF like that. They're bitter already, have this expectation that tall CoC's are unsupportive garbage, they're going to get PTSD on their first deployment and their upcoming VAC claims will be delayed or denied. Mind blowing.


...and everyone joining the RCAF will be posted to Cold Lake for their career.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2020)

Well in the 80's there was a good chance of spending most of your career in Shilo if you went artillery.


----------



## dimsum (30 Dec 2020)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Well in the 80's there was a good chance of spending most of your career in Shilo if you went artillery.


Definitely.

However, we don't even have most of our fleets in Cold Lake.  It's like saying everyone in the Army _will_ get posted to Shilo, even Van Doos.


----------



## Weinie (30 Dec 2020)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Well in the 80's there was a good chance of spending most of your career in Shilo if you went artillery.


Ah, Shilo, spent 10 years there from 84-85.


----------



## rnkelly (30 Dec 2020)

Weinie said:


> Ah, Shilo, spent 10 years there from 84-85.


 
Am I allowed to laugh if I was never posted there?


----------



## Weinie (30 Dec 2020)

rnkelly said:


> Am I allowed to laugh if I was never posted there?


I left there with mixed emotions. I was so happy I cried.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Dec 2020)

Weinie said:


> Ah, Shilo, spent 10 years there from 84-85.


Sounds like a paraphrase of Harry Chapin's comment about Watertown NY (just outside Fort Drum): "I spent a week there one afternoon..."


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:


> Sounds like a paraphrase of Harry Chapin's comment about Watertown NY (just outside Fort Drum): "I spent a week there one afternoon..."


Did a summer concentration there a long time ago. Don't remember much of the town, but training at Fort Drum was interesting.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Dec 2020)

Weinie said:


> Ah, Shilo, spent 10 years there from 84-85.



Did you spend 10 years there beginning in 84-85 or did your time there in 84-85 feel like 10 years? 😆🙉


----------



## Weinie (30 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Did you spend 10 years there beginning in 84-85 or did your time there in 84-85 feel like 10 years? 😆🙉


Yup


----------



## FJAG (30 Dec 2020)

The thing about Shilo was if you were married with kids it was a great base to live on; if you were single ... not so much.

🍻


----------



## dimsum (31 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:


> The thing about Shilo was if you were married with kids it was a great base to live on; if you were single ... not so much.
> 
> 🍻


Same with Greenwood.


----------



## FSTO (31 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:


> The thing about Shilo was if you were married with kids it was a great base to live on; if you were single ... not so much.
> 
> 🍻


What?!? Lots of "Talent" at the Keystone, the Crystal, the Unwinder! 

Pretty good place to be if you liked to hunt, fish and do outdoorsy stuff.
I was born and raised about 40 miles to the south and used to hear the guns all the time. 
When I went to the recruiting centre to join the Navy, a MCC suggested armoured, I told him that I already knew how to drive a tractor.


----------



## dimsum (31 Dec 2020)

FSTO said:


> What?!? Lots of "Talent" at the Keystone, the Crystal, the Unwinder!
> 
> Pretty good place to be if you liked to hunt, fish and do outdoorsy stuff.
> I was born and raised about 40 miles to the south and used to hear the guns all the time.
> When I went to the recruiting centre to join the Navy, a MCC suggested armoured, I told him that I already knew how to drive a tractor.


I see you, like many other Prairie sailors, joined the RCN to get the hell out of the Prairies


----------



## mariomike (31 Dec 2020)

dimsum said:


> ...and everyone joining the RCAF will be posted to Cold Lake for their career.


My sister loves the area.  Retired now, but says she will never move away.  I understand opinions may vary between single members, and those married with children. 

QUOTE:  "I see you, like many other Prairie sailors, joined the RCN to get the hell out of the Prairies " 

My father mentioned that a significant number of his shipmates during the war were from the prairie provinces. Their last re-union was in Red Deer, Alberta. He never joined the Legion, but never missed a re-union. BC ,  Atlantic Canada, or anywhere in between. 

QUOTE: "The Canadian Forces area on reddit makes for some pretty interesting observations."

Never read that forum. Social media did not exist when I, and many others, joined "the profession of arms".  Just had to find out for ourselves.


----------



## dimsum (31 Dec 2020)

mariomike said:


> My sister loves the area.  Retired now, but says she will never move away.  I understand opinions may vary between single members, and those married with children.


Probably a bigger divide between those who want to be near cities, and those who want to be in rural areas.   

On another note, now that telework has been shown to be a viable option for some office workers, it'll be interesting to see if bases decide to let some of their office-bound folks work from home.  Taking it the next step, maybe even allowing people to stay in one spot while working in another, e.g. "posted" to a new location but really staying in their old one.  A few people I know have done that during Covid with little to no stoppage in work.  That could help alleviate the whole issue of getting posted to somewhere like the NCR, if you can do your work at home or in a borrowed office at your current base.

I've never thought that it would be successful but from what I've heard, it's worked out quite well.


----------



## Quirky (31 Dec 2020)

dimsum said:


> Probably a bigger divide between those who want to be near cities, and those who want to be in rural areas.


All comes down to this, our rural superbases, by Canadian standards, probably cause more people hardship than anything else. Cold lake itself isn’t a horrible place on its own, but the biggest complaint is the isolation and time it takes to get anywhere for services. It’s literally in the middle of nowhere only because of its proximity to CLAWR.


----------



## MilEME09 (31 Dec 2020)

Quirky said:


> All comes down to this, our rural superbases, by Canadian standards, probably cause more people hardship than anything else. Cold lake itself isn’t a horrible place on its own, but the biggest complaint is the isolation and time it takes to get anywhere for services. It’s literally in the middle of nowhere only because of its proximity to CLAWR.


Considering I have seen services get better to a degree in places like Wainwright as a result of some of the bases influence, how much does CFB cold lake contribute to the local economy? One would think services would come to cold lake if the was the economic drive to make it worth it.


----------



## MJP (31 Dec 2020)

ballz said:


> They aren't "complaining," they are making an observation. Your reaction comes across as defensive, which the DND/CAF always does because it's awfully insecure about itself and being criticized about anything. And if you actually don't see 3/4 manning as an issue, perhaps that's just further support to their observation since it's become so engrained in our modus operandi that people don't even recognize it as a problem.
> 
> The article is pretty poor at explaining anything but it's worth reading the actual internal audit report, I wish we paid more attention to the ADM(RS) reports. https://www.canada.ca/en/department...ion-caf-bases-wings-sustainment-programs.html


As you know I live the admin issue raised by the report and


MilEME09 said:


> Considering I have seen services get better to a degree in places like Wainwright as a result of some of the bases influence, how much does CFB cold lake contribute to the local economy? One would think services would come to cold lake if the was the economic drive to make it worth it.


We like to think that in places like Brandon, Wainwright, Medicine Hat and Cold Lake that DND/CAF contribute greatly to driving the local economy but reality is that we just don't in any of those locations. For the Alberta based ones Oil and Gas are the main drivers even in the downturn and Brandon is a regional collector and aggregates as Southwest economic hub in MB.

Often what you see in places affiliated with bases is that people offer services that the base needs. In Wx's case the Log Company there has build and maintains a number of long term contracts to support base and visitor requirements which is why you see better service delivery


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Dec 2020)

dimsum said:


> On another note, now that telework has been shown to be a viable option for some office workers, it'll be interesting to see if bases decide to let some of their office-bound folks work from home.


We could probably save a lot of money having office workers at field units work from home and not collect LDA, especially when units send someone to the field over night once every 6 months to "qualify" for LDA.


----------



## MJP (31 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:


> We could probably save a lot of money having office workers at field units work from home and not collect LDA, especially when units send someone to the field over night once every 6 months to "qualify" for LDA.


Just go with a super allowance that rewards you for doing your job at sea, in the field or in the air and remove the gaming of the system and rewarding folks by virtue of posting.

That said while it removes some of barriers to filling base posns the long and short of it is that the issue has many facets and needs a holistic look.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (31 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:


> Great post.
> 
> The Canadian Forces area on reddit makes for some pretty interesting observations.
> 
> ...



This the reality of the newest generation. Ultimately life in the first world really doesn't have much in the way of struggles. If you need your dishes cleaned, there is a dishwashing machine. If you need to shovel your driveway, there is a snowblower. If you need to go somewhere even the most basic of cars have a ton of features that would have been high end 40 years ago (not to mention things like uber, etc.). You need to get a item, it is shipped to your door in two days. If you need to research something, you google it quickly. They don't even do pop quizzes in school anymore because kids can't handle it. 

What this means is there is a lack of stressors. Without stressors we do not develop stress management skills which in turn means when they do receive a little bit of stress they panic and melt down. The CAF happens to be a excellent workplace to provide all sorts of stress and if people are not even remotely prepared for it they will struggle and/or fail. Even if you are well prepared this workplace can still cause you to struggle and/or fail. 

Difficulty managing stress isn't also confined to newer members. I have seen older members struggle with having to go to the field, they just tend not to post about that on social media, instead trying to figure out ways to get out of it. 

This problem isn't going to go away, it is only going to get worse as time progresses. Our weak education systems are failing to give people the tools they need and the opportunities to fail (and failing is usually more important than succeeding as you learn more from failures than you do from successes).


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:


> We could probably save a lot of money having office workers at field units work from home and not collect LDA, especially when units send someone to the field over night once every 6 months to "qualify" for LDA.


Oh they went to the field for real? I know of a major Sigs unit in Kingston years ago that did exercises in a parking lot on the base to justify LDA... and they went home at night...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (31 Dec 2020)

dimsum said:


> . . .  now that telework has been shown to be a viable option for some office workers, . . .





Jarnhamar said:


> We could probably save a lot of money having office workers at field units work from home and not collect LDA, especially when units send someone to the field over night once every 6 months to "qualify" for LDA.



I suppose the definition of "office workers" varies.  During my military career (and afterward in the private sector) my primary place of employment was sometimes an office (or cubicle), but rarely would I have described myself as an "office worker" or, while still in the CAF, have described my immediate (uniformed) subordinates (especially in field force units) as "office workers".  Yes, clerical, administrative and some staff functions could be performed remotely from home, but if the occupants of those positions were able to do that, why are they in uniform?  The standard response is because of the requirement to perform those functions when deployed operationally.  But if the function can be performed remotely, why is there a need to deploy these pers?


----------



## Furniture (31 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> Considering I have seen services get better to a degree in places like Wainwright as a result of some of the bases influence, how much does CFB cold lake contribute to the local economy? One would think services would come to cold lake if the was the economic drive to make it worth it.


The number and types of services required for a few thousand(at best) military members and their families is nothing compared to the services offered in places like Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver, etc... The kinds of places we are attempting to draw/retain recruits from. 

We may have saved money by going to rural bases and shutting down the urban ones, but we may be costing ourselves in personnel.


----------



## dimsum (31 Dec 2020)

WeatherdoG said:


> The number and types of services required for a few thousand(at best) military members and their families is nothing compared to the services offered in places like Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver, etc... The kinds of places we are attempting to draw/retain recruits from.
> 
> We may have saved money by going to rural bases and shutting down the urban ones, but we may be costing ourselves in personnel.


I've mentioned this before, but the Australian Army (whose bases are generally in urban areas) are also having the same issue.  So I'm not 100% convinced that we'd magically fix the personnel issue.  

It would definitely be a step in the right direction, but I think it's incorrect to think that it will fix retention completely.


----------



## MilEME09 (31 Dec 2020)

dimsum said:


> I've mentioned this before, but the Australian Army (whose bases are generally in urban areas) are also having the same issue.  So I'm not 100% convinced that we'd magically fix the personnel issue.
> 
> It would definitely be a step in the right direction, but I think it's incorrect to think that it will fix retention completely.


I think what would be useful if its not being done right now is anonymous exit surveys/interviews. If members are honest about why they are leaving we can look at addressing it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Dec 2020)

The city bases also kept the military as part of the fabric of the society. Now people rarely see military personal in most cites and towns. As you travel around the world, the military is always in the community.


----------



## MilEME09 (31 Dec 2020)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The city bases also kept the military as part of the fabric of the society. Now people rarely see military personal in most cites and towns. As you travel around the world, the military is always in the community.


You would think a viable strategy would be to use the PRes or even reg force in more COMREL type events to keep us in the public eye. Urban ops exercises, etc... wasn't it in about 2008 the military took over a portion of Okotoks, AB for a urban warfare EX?


----------



## Weinie (31 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> *You would think a viable strategy would be to use the PRes or even reg force in more COMREL type events to keep us in the public eye*. Urban ops exercises, etc... wasn't it in about 2008 the military took over a portion of Okotoks, AB for a urban warfare EX?


We have tried that on several occasions ISO various initiatives (outreach,recruiting etc). Invariably factors such as cost, pushback (and there is *always* some group opposed no matter the initiiative), new leadership, fatigue, disinterest, ops, gaffes, or political restrictions lead to abandonment.
There is very little day to day interest in the CAF amongst the populace. They are completely supportive (polling is always about 90%). We have very little impact on the daily lives of Canadians, and that is a good thing.
Rather than be all singing and dancing, or at every dance, better to show up when you are most needed, do the biz exceedingly well, and quietly get outta Dodge.


----------



## dimsum (31 Dec 2020)

Weinie said:


> We have tried that on several occasions ISO various initiatives (outreach,recruiting etc). Invariably factors such as cost, pushback (and there is *always* some group opposed no matter the initiiative), new leadership, fatigue, disinterest, ops, gaffes, or political restrictions lead to abandonment.
> There is very little day to day interest in the CAF amongst the populace. They are completely supportive (polling is always about 90%). We have very little impact on the daily lives of Canadians, and that is a good thing.
> Rather than be all singing and dancing, or at every dance, better to show up when you are most needed, do the biz exceedingly well, and quietly get outta Dodge.


There could be a middle ground.  Have units in the cities but not outwardly (or too outwardly) publicize things.  Just have personnel go about their lives - the public will see them going to/from work, getting groceries, going places with families...

We already have examples with CFBs Edmonton and Halifax.


----------



## ballz (31 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> You would think a viable strategy would be to use the PRes or even reg force in more COMREL type events to keep us in the public eye. Urban ops exercises, etc... wasn't it in about 2008 the military took over a portion of Okotoks, AB for a urban warfare EX?



This strikes me as a good way to hurt the retention, not to mention just effectiveness overall from a training perspective as vital activities continue to take a backseat to activities that add questionable value. In my circles, most of us are sick of draining the limited resources we have with more BS COMREL activities. It's all very hypocritical of senior leadership who keep saying "yes we need to reduce op tempo" while being completely unrestrained at any COMREL opportunity no matter how expensive or stupid a particular opportunity might be.

As I said at the start of this thread, this report is reporting a symptom of a larger problem, not enough resources to deal with ever increasing unrestrained ambition of our political masters and senior leadership. That problem isn't going to be improved by even _more_ tasks...

Maybe they should actually do some performance measurements, like a grown-up organization would, on the efficacy of COMREL events (or anything for that matter). Everyone seems to be assuming that they are good for recruiting but there's no evidence to suggest so one way or another because we're completely void of any performance metrics, a pretty key part of implementing anything that we can't seem to figure out. At least if there were some performance metrics to support it, the people who have are continually put through the ringer to conduct these types of tasks might actually be able to get behind it.


----------



## Weinie (31 Dec 2020)

ballz said:


> *In my circles, most of us are sick of draining the limited resources* we have with more BS COMREL activities. It's all very hypocritical of senior leadership who keep saying "yes we need to reduce op tempo" while being completely unrestrained at any COMREL opportunity no matter how expensive or stupid a particular opportunity might be.
> 
> 
> Maybe they should actually do some performance measurements, like a grown-up organization would, on the efficacy of COMREL events (or anything for that matter).


And as the guy that was invariably directed to be the lead on this, I was way past "sick" of asking you folks to support. I soldiered on.

The only "performance measurement" that senior leadership was concerned with was the 30 second clip, and the two columns in the local (and occasional national) paper. Check in the box, duly communicated on high.


----------



## MilEME09 (31 Dec 2020)

Given the above posts highlight the mindset around these types of events, I question if the events them selves are being executed well, or if we are doing the right kinds of events.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Dec 2020)

Double tap


----------



## FSTO (1 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> I see you, like many other Prairie sailors, joined the RCN to get the hell out of the Prairies


You mis-understand me grasshopper. I absolutely love the prairies and get back there as much as possible. I just liked the thought of being a Naval Officer and never considered the Army or Air Force at all.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> There could be a middle ground.  Have units in the cities but not outwardly (or too outwardly) publicize things.  Just have personnel go about their lives - the public will see them going to/from work, getting groceries, going places with families...
> 
> We already have examples with CFBs Edmonton and Halifax.


There are thousands of Navy personnel within a stone's throw of Victoria, at CFB Esquimalt,  and you wouldn't know it unless you hung out at the Timmie's on Esquimalt Rd. There are hundreds of Army reservists in Victoria's Capital Region and no one really knows they're there, or what they do.

Unless you're prepared to have large numbers of uniformed troops wandering up and down Douglas or Blanshard streets on a daily basis chatting to people, which would more likely cause alarm than build rapport, you'll never really have the military cross the minds of local civilians on a regular basis. Even then, the 'CAF Brand' is such that you're not likely to hit the right COMREL targets - whatever those are beyond making CO's look good marching at the head large groups of troops - by merely showing up occasionally.

The answer likely lies somewhere in the realms of a more sophisticated virtual/online marketing and advertising program, much like other big organizations do these days. However, a recent project I came across was looking at ways to get more posters and brochures distributed like, you know, we used to do in the 1970s.

As always, our challenges are intellectual, strategic and cultural as opposed to anything else.


----------



## mariomike (1 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> However, a recent project I came across was looking at ways to get more posters and brochures distributed like, you know, we used to do in the 1970s.


I remember seeing the posters and brochures in high school. They also had "Sentinal Magazine".


----------



## FJAG (1 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> ...
> The answer likely lies somewhere in the realms of a more sophisticated virtual/online marketing and advertising program, much like other big organizations do these days. However, a recent project I came across was looking at ways to get more posters and brochures distributed like, you know, we used to do in the 1970s.
> ...


Strangely enough my 44 year military career started in 1965 as the Vietnam War was ramping up down south. I never knew a thing about the Canadian Army nor had I seen any advertising or brochures.

The sole reason I was recruited was because there were ten of us (out of 1,300 students) on my high school's stage crew and one of them was a reservist whose regiment offered a ten dollar bounty (i.e the equivalent of four cases of 24's of beer in those days) for every new recruit they brought in. He talked me into going down. I always thought it was the best ten bucks DND ever spent and that they got their money's worth.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> Strangely enough my 44 year military career started in 1965 as the Vietnam War was ramping up down south. I never knew a thing about the Canadian Army nor had I seen any advertising or brochures.
> 
> The sole reason I was recruited was because there were ten of us (out of 1,300 students) on my high school's stage crew and one of them was a reservist whose regiment offered a ten dollar bounty (i.e the equivalent of four cases of 24's of beer in those days) for every new recruit they brought in. He talked me into going down. I always thought it was the best ten bucks DND ever spent and that they got their money's worth.


Here's a good example of the confusion between COMREL and Recruiting:

In this case, COMREL measures of success seemed to be connected to generating more recruits. And the plan worked.

What if COMREL success measures were more connected to 'make sure that the civilian population supports our next (slightly confusing) foreign conflict that may result in dead Canadians', or 'ensure that there will be a howl of outrage across voters of all stripes should the government of the day even consider de-funding the Arm/Nay/Air Force.'

I guess it's all about the old 'seleciton and maintnenance of the aim' thing....


----------



## YZT580 (1 Jan 2021)

It was also simpler when many high schools hosted their own cadet corps.  Mine even had a gun range located in the cafeteria.  Superb drawing card for a bunch of young teens brought up on Gunsmoke and Rin Tin Tin.


----------



## mariomike (1 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> It was also simpler when many high schools hosted their own cadet corps.  Mine even had a gun range located in the cafeteria.


This may, or may not, be of interest,

QUOTE

*TL Kennedy Secondary School had an indoor rifle range

Back in the 50s and 60s there was a rifle club and cadet training at T.L. Kennedy. Cadets used it first in association with the Lorne Scots Regiment and by the late ’50s Cadet membership became mandatory for grade 9 boys. Then the Rifle Club started and lasted until 1975 when the mass shooting at Brampton Centennial in 1975 happened (two daughters of then Min. of Education Bill Davis were attending there). It was the first school shooting in Canadian history that resulted in deaths. Back in the 1960s T.L. Kennedy alumni have mentioned that some of them brought their own rifles to practice and stored them in their lockers. There was the actual rifle range in the basement that was located in the basement by the school office as seen below. It is now used as an equipment and storage room. 
5 Things You Didn’t Know About Mississauga | insauga.com

END QUOTE*


----------



## YZT580 (1 Jan 2021)

mariomike said:


> This may, or may not, be of interest,
> 
> QUOTE
> 
> ...


Small correction that doesn't change the import: Bill Davis was the Education Minister in John Robarts government.  In 1971 he became premier of Ontario; a position he held for a decade.  Interesting though that the shooting did not occur at the school with the rifle range where students were properly introduced to firearms and firearm safety.  Perhaps there is a lesson there too (but I am off-topic, sorry)


----------



## mariomike (1 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Small correction that doesn't change the import: Bill Davis was the Education Minister in John Robarts government.  In 1971 he became premier of Ontario; a position he held for a decade.  Interesting though that the shooting did not occur at the school with the rifle range where students were properly introduced to firearms and firearm safety.  Perhaps there is a lesson there too (but I am off-topic, sorry)


I offered it only as possibly  historical, not political, interest. It was a quote from a Mississauga news report.


----------



## YZT580 (1 Jan 2021)

mariomike said:


> I offered it only as possibly  historical, not political, interest. It was a quote from a Mississauga news report.


Sad that a local newspaper can't take the time to fact check.  It would appear though that rifle clubs and ranges were no all that uncommon.  Cadets though are a great way to foster recruiting.  Perhaps spending a little advertising cash on improving the cadet programmes to make them more appealing to young people would be one way to go to up the numbers of 'good' candidates.


----------



## mariomike (1 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Cadets though are a great way to foster recruiting.  Perhaps spending a little advertising cash on improving the cadet programmes to make them more appealing to young people would be one way to go to up the numbers of 'good' candidates.


I do not recall cadets in our school. But, we had CAF posters, brochures and Sentinel. I joined the RCASC - PRes when I was 16. My friend joined the Infantry.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> There are thousands of Navy personnel within a stone's throw of Victoria, at CFB Esquimalt,  and you wouldn't know it unless you hung out at the Timmie's on Esquimalt Rd. There are hundreds of Army reservists in Victoria's Capital Region and no one really knows they're there, or what they do.
> 
> Unless you're prepared to have large numbers of uniformed troops wandering up and down Douglas or Blanshard streets on a daily basis chatting to people, which would more likely cause alarm than build rapport, you'll never really have the military cross the minds of local civilians on a regular basis. Even then, the 'CAF Brand' is such that you're not likely to hit the right COMREL targets - whatever those are beyond making CO's look good marching at the head large groups of troops - by merely showing up occasionally.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more D&B.  I think most of our COMREL events are misguided and don't really target the right audiences.  

I personally think online marketing as well as advertising are better uses of our dollars than 'send trooper/sailor x' to whatever function, parade, etc. We've been pressured to attend.  Unless it's high profile, like this particular event:






62k views of a recording of a couple of CAF folks doing some cool stuff in a high profile venue.

We also do a real poor job at leveraging social media.  We get excited over a couple of thousand hits on a video which are usually just CAF members watching videos of themselves.

Compare it to channels like Funker tactical:






1.5 million views on the Funker Tactical Youtube Channel of CANSOF no less.  






Or this one of The RCR engaging the Taliban.  1.5 million views. 

Compared to the CAF Official Channel which get in the sub 10k views for every video it puts out.

The advertising also has to be done at the right events and be the right kind of advertising. Sporting events like combat sports, extreme sports, Major Leagues, etc offer great venues for our adverts and billboards.  They also need to target the right demographics.

As for building favour for our Military Operations, that's an entirely different conversation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jan 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Couldn't agree more D&B.  I think most of our COMREL events are misguided and don't really target the right audiences.
> 
> I personally think online marketing as well as advertising are better uses of our dollars than 'send trooper/sailor x' to whatever function, parade, etc. We've been pressured to attend.  Unless it's high profile, like this particular event:
> 
> ...


You are, perhaps, mistaken that we are officially even chasing that demographic anymore...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Jan 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> You are, perhaps, mistaken that we are officially even chasing that demographic anymore...


I struggle to understand a lot these days.  I don't really know who we are chasing at this point? 🤔


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (2 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> Has anyone ever done a comprehensive study to see if we are obtaining the cost benefits that a manufacturer's 3rd and 4th line maintenance system was supposed to bring. I've read a few CRS reviews and Auditor General's reports that seem to indicate we are being badly served by these systems.
> 
> Personally, I dislike any logistics or maintenance system that we don't own and can't deploy.
> 
> 🍻


I am also interested if a study was ever done.
However, I could care less if we are being served well by these service contracts.  It doesn't matter.
How strictly they are adhered to in the march to save a few pennies will cost the CAF. In personnel and operational readiness.
We have personnel who have left home and their family's from six months to a year training to be able to fix equipment and solve problems down to the component level. Then they get posted.
If they are posted to 1rst line field unit, they tag equipment and send it in. No problem.
2nd and 3rd line,  *Because of these service contracts we are not allowed to open the equipment. * The high level of skill that has just been provided you is slowly fading. That doesn't mean nothing is being done. There is always slack to pull. There is always an endless supply of equipment that needs work/ inspection.

Meanwhile you have the upper CoC in front of everybody saying that your trade will no longer be necessary because all your trade does is swap cards and your trade will be entirely replaced by 4th line service contracts.

*God help us if we ever get in to a shooting conflict. I'm sure relying on civilians to do our repairs and trouble shoot during war/ pandemic/ famine etc. etc. will do us well *Sarcasm *(Just look at BGRS during covid).

It is the intimate knowledge of knowing how the equipment works inside and out that lets us "cowboy" when we need to.

And now when sh** does hit the fan (as it frequently does).  The upper CoC has done their absolute best through action and inaction to:
Have the signalers only be capable of pushing buttons and possibly changing a box (if they haven't been told they aren't allowed to do that).   Why isn't being explained to them. They can not tell you why they are doing what they are doing. Just that they are doing it. (I know this does not apply to all signalers).
Logical thinking process and a reasonable level of how things work needs to be taught at the school. Shifting the responsibility to the units with "You'll never use this" or "You'll learn it at the unit" doesn't work.

What happens when the signalers get to the field and all of a sudden are expected to be experts?
Often there is failures though no fault of their own. Because they haven't seen a particular configuration of equipment. *The only way to fix this is spending time in a classroom and backed up by field training. *I imagine this would help with morale (doing training and getting good instead of busy work or having to prepare a day in advance for something that was known about months earlier).

The sig techs who are supposed to have intimate component knowledge of the equipment are picking up the slack from a lack of signaler personnel.

What does this all this add up to? Disgruntled signalers.  Disgruntled techs. Loss of professional identity and esprit de corps. Reduced capacity to respond communications problems. Reduced operational readiness.



dapaterson said:


> Indirect costs of CAF personnel are roughly double those of the public service (health care costs, early pension costs, military training costs...)  If we accept the assumption that public service personnel are more expensive than contracted personnel, then a model that grows CAF personnel or public service personnel in 2nd / 3rd / 4th line positions would be cost prohibitive - and, since the overall number of CAF personnel is limited, would detract from the "pointy end" of the CAF (unless we come up with better tools to optimize both the full and part-time components of the CAF).
> 
> How many "urgent" CAF requirements are driven by units unwilling to plan ahead, and dropping demands at the last minute?  How many delays are driven by incomplete work and lack of follow-up?
> 
> ...


How many urgent requirements by units unwilling to plan ahead. At least 80%.  I would just laugh and do my best.

I believe that 4th line refers to being sent to a civilian company for repair. Not the level.
But yes, the CAF 3rd line should be capable to do EVERY repair 4th line does.  I'm not saying we should do it ALL the time. But at least some of the time.  Schematics, tools, time, and will-power to open equipment must be available. Yes! This is not the most economical way to do it! It is the only way to do it if we wish to maintain skilled personnel and be ready for conflict.


MilEME09 said:


> How many actually understand how the process works or how to fill it out? First UCR I ever did took awhile for me to get done because the CAF UCR instructions are read as a what the form is and when to use it, not how to fill out the form, and no one around knew either had to make a few phone calls.


You can easily spend at half a day at it.  It will probably go straight to Ottawa. I still do them.  I want to believe.


dimsum said:


> If we are to change mindset to that model, we'll have to made SCAN seminars mandatory (which I'm sure everyone will love) and/or institute the US-style "up or out".  I'm not a big fan of "up or out" since some people are really good at their job and should stay there.
> 
> Also, I'd feel sorry for anyone (recruiters, especially) trying to explain the change to the public.  I can already imagine people saying "the military will send you to war, then fire you."  Hell, they do it now.


Lateral promotions?

Time for coffee!


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> It was also simpler when many high schools hosted their own cadet corps.  Mine even had a gun range located in the cafeteria.  Superb drawing card for a bunch of young teens brought up on Gunsmoke and Rin Tin Tin.


And we have basically the same approach today AFAIK, which will likely not hit the mark for a more 'woke' audience.


----------



## Ostrozac (2 Jan 2021)

This thread has swerved far away from Base level support being understaffed -- it is taken as written that this is just a symptom of a wider problem, that the Canadian Armed Forces is understaffed, and has problems with recruiting and retention. After all, if all CFBs were magically fully manned tomorrow, then something else would have to be understaffed, and those units would complain about it -- it's a bit of a zero sum game in that respect.

So what is the actual problem? It could be strongly argued that our traditional recruiting pool of men from small town Canada is demographically dying. (The demographics, present and projected, of the Quebecois population has further implications for the Canadian Army, specifically whether 3 of 9 infantry battalions, and 1 of 3 mechanized brigades, can be sustained as Francophone in the future, but that's probably a sacred cow to be barbecued separately from the rest of the herd). And with our traditional recruiting pool evaporating, we are now turning, grudgingly and in some desperation, to other parts of the population. But we have, as an institution, not exactly been welcoming to the groups we are now forced to see as our future. Closing garrisons in cities didn't help, but neither do some of our other choices. It isn't new -- _Web of Hate _(with a chapter on racism in the CF) was published in 1996 and "Rape in the Military" was a Maclean's cover story in 1998. Our ongoing issues with sexual assault and racist conduct have been in the press for decades, and we as an institution have had those decades to either solve the problem or prove that there was no problem and the media didn't know what they are talking about. We failed, and if we want to embrace a diverse future we have to admit that, fix the problems and move on.

Because if we think this woke stuff is just a flash in the pan and we are waiting for small town Canada to flock back to the recruiting centres, I have a news flash -- it just isn't there anymore. The median age of Newfoundland and Labrador is 47. My own home town in northern Ontario isn't far behind. The future of the Canadian Armed Forces is closely tied to the diverse populations of our major cities, and we need to do whatever it takes to reach out to those cities and prove that we are indeed an institution worth serving in. And yes, that probably means that we have to change. But as much as we like to condemn the youths for not being able to change to suit military service, we also have a pretty poor record ourselves of being flexible as an organization. But we need to be flexible in order to survive -- and the onus is on the CAF to change. Because what we're doing now? It isn't sustainable.

As to what those changes should be? I'm close to 50, and I'm the wrong guy to ask. Ask your troops. And especially ask the ones who are walking away.


----------



## dimsum (2 Jan 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> The future of the Canadian Armed Forces is closely tied to the diverse populations of our major cities, and we need to do whatever it takes to reach out to those cities and prove that we are indeed an institution worth serving in. And yes, that probably means that we have to change. But as much as we like to condemn the youths for not being able to change to suit military service, we also have a pretty poor record ourselves of being flexible as an organization. But we need to flexible in order to survive -- and the onus is on the CAF to change. Because what we're doing now? It isn't sustainable.
> 
> As to what those changes should be? I'm close to 50, and I'm the wrong guy to ask. Ask your troops. And especially ask the ones who are walking away.


The second part of that is to actually do the (hard) things that will get people in and keep people in.  I mentioned that the Australian Army has retention issues as well despite having bases in cities (something I see on discussion forums often), but personally, I think we're hooped if we don't move our bases closer to places where the younger folks want to live.


----------



## Weinie (2 Jan 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> This thread has swerved far away from Base level support being understaffed -- it is taken as written that this is just a symptom of a wider problem, that the Canadian Armed Forces is understaffed, and has problems with recruiting and retention. After all, if all CFBs were magically fully manned tomorrow, then something else would have to be understaffed, and those units would complain about it -- it's a bit of a zero sum game in that respect.
> 
> So what is the actual problem? It could be strongly argued that our traditional recruiting pool of men from small town Canada is demographically dying. (The demographics, present and projected, of the Quebecois population has further implications for the Canadian Army, specifically whether 3 of 9 infantry battalions, and 1 of 3 mechanized brigades, can be sustained as Francophone in the future, but that's probably a sacred cow to be barbecued separately from the rest of the herd). And with our traditional recruiting pool evaporating, we are now turning, grudgingly and in some desperation, to other parts of the population. But we have, as an institution, not exactly been welcoming to the groups we are now forced to see as our future. Closing garrisons in cities didn't help, but neither do some of our other choices. It isn't new -- _Web of Hate _(with a chapter on racism in the CF) was published in 1996 and "Rape in the Military" was a Maclean's cover story in 1998. Our ongoing issues with sexual assault and racist conduct have been in the press for decades, and we as an institution have had those decades to either solve the problem or prove that there was no problem and the media didn't know what they are talking about. We failed, and if we want to embrace a diverse future we have to admit that, fix the problems and move on.
> 
> ...


Ostrozac,

Your comments are bang on. When I joined in 83, Gr 8 was the minimum required to apply, and I had numerous fellow recruits with that qual in my platoon. We have since (rightfully) increased our minimum entrance standards, but depleted the pool. 

We suffered from a variety of malaises in the 90's,many of which you have touched on. Shyte pay was also a factor: in 1994, as a Captain, I was making about $36K a year. In 1981, while working in a coal mine in Alberta, I (as a dumb ass 20 year old, was raking in about $60 with overtime). We have come some way in overcoming that, but not enough to convince Gen Y's that they should realistically consider the CAF as a option.

And then let's look at what we do. (and I only say this from an attractions perspective, I have served for almost 38 years, and if I were to magically wake up tomorrow as an 18 year old, I would run to the recruiting office to do it again) We have bases in crap places, training that is tough, deployments that separate loved ones for extended periods of time, and media horror stories galore. 

Recruitment was high during Afghanistan (thank you testosterone fueled 20 somethings). In the absence of a war, I am not sure what we can offer that would attract recruits. Travel is easy now, exposure via the Internet to other cultures is ubiquitous, our posting and opportunity options are anathema to Gen Y's.

And demographics will be the biggest killer of all.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2021)

The CAF continues to have applications that outstrip available positions in most occupations.  The recruiting system, however, needs a top to bottom reset to be faster and more responsive.

Certain occupations / branches / environments also need some long reflection on how they can better leverage current and future Canadian society for recruiting.  Hundreds of years of tradition unimpeded by progress result in a non-representative population that struggles to reach targets.

In other areas, those responsible for training have not invested in capacity to meet their needs and have built massive backlogs awaiting training.

There are few complex issues - just stubborn unwillingness to admit that we are no longer in the 1950s.


----------



## Ostrozac (2 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> Recruitment was high during Afghanistan (thank you testosterone fueled 20 somethings). In the absence of a war, I am not sure what we can offer that would attract recruits.


Recruiting for wartime service is different than recruiting for a long service permanent force. The Romans knew that, with different terms of service for auxiliaries and the legions. We used to know it as recently as Korea, when we specifically recruited a Special Force that would leave their wives and furniture behind in their home towns. Career soldiering, especially peacetime soldiering, is different, and needs more of a long game.

If we were to go to war, tomorrow, with North Korea, we’d have a flurry of applicants. But they would similarly be “one and done” — that wouldn’t solve our long term issues.


----------



## Weinie (2 Jan 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> Recruiting for wartime service is different than recruiting for a long service permanent force. The Romans knew that, with different terms of service for auxiliaries and the legions. We used to know it as recently as Korea, when we specifically recruited a Special Force that would leave their wives and furniture behind in their home towns. Career soldiering, especially peacetime soldiering, is different, and needs more of a long game.
> 
> If we were to go to war, tomorrow, with North Korea, we’d have a flurry of applicants. But they would similarly be “one and done” — that wouldn’t solve our long term issues.


That was my point. The only prolonged recruiting surge we have had in the last 40 years has been during a war. I don't know how we would extrapolate that to the current conditions.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (2 Jan 2021)

Employment Equity Act
					

Federal laws of Canada




					laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
				




In order to reach federal quotas the CAF and RCMP does not want "white" "able bodied" "males" (in the context of reaching "employment equity" .  


> so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability


I hope that's the way it goes.

When I was in high school I was told by an RCMP officer to not apply if you were white unless you had university. No joke. Only 25% white males were allowed.

As the hiring is based on race and gender to meet federal quotas I wonder what will happen?
edit: please prove me wrong. I wish to be wrong.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2021)

So, RCMP told you to upgrade your education to be competitive.  Did you do so?

Or is it easier to whine and complain that people who do have higher qualifications than you are selected instead?


----------



## ballz (2 Jan 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> As to what those changes should be? I'm close to 50, and I'm the wrong guy to ask. Ask your troops. And especially ask the ones who are walking away.



Back to the CAF's ego and insecurity about anything it might be doing wrong, anyone walking away is generally the last people anyone is going to listen to, or we'd rather make up reasons they left that suit our ego instead of acknowledge the person leaving had good reasons that we won't/can't address. My favourite is the always automatic assumption that I'm leaving for better pay whilst I'm taking a 50% pay cut.... far more than 50% if you consider annual leave and pension.


----------



## ballz (2 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> We suffered from a variety of malaises in the 90's,many of which you have touched on. Shyte pay was also a factor: in 1994, as a Captain, I was making about $36K a year. In 1981, while working in a coal mine in Alberta, I (as a dumb ass 20 year old, was raking in about $60 with overtime). We have come some way in overcoming that, but not enough to convince Gen Y's that they should realistically consider the CAF as a option.



We've more than overcome that, we're paying far more than basically any other job for the same credentials / experience that I can think of in Canada, except maybe some hard labour jobs in very limited "gold rush" towns.. Far far more. No one is not joining the CAF or leaving the CAF because of compensation. There may be a perception amongst the general population that it doesn't pay well, which could be addressed, but increasing compensation would likely yield zero positive results for recruiting / retention (and if only we did something like, I dunno, performance measurements, we wouldn't have to guess at that).


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (2 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> So, RCMP told you to upgrade your education to be competitive.  Did you do so?
> 
> Or is it easier to whine and complain that people who do have higher qualifications than you are selected instead?


Upgraded my education. College was ok.  Didn't make it to university. That's how I ended up in the army. Part of the reasoning was having food for supporting the kids if social unrest, pandemic or partial economic collapse happened, I was right. Yay me? Feels both good and bad being right.

It's far easier  whining and complaining! Thank you very much.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> In the absence of a war, I am not sure what we can offer that would attract recruits. Travel is easy now, exposure via the Internet to other cultures is ubiquitous, our posting and opportunity options are anathema to Gen Y's.
> 
> And demographics will be the biggest killer of all.


We can offer summer employment for students while undergoing their education, assistance with their education expenses, training in many skill areas useful on civvy street, a period of employment to gain experience and qualify them for a future civilian career, more post service education and a modest pension and additional part time employment in the reserves afterwards while they pursue their new civilian career and family growth.

The key here is to do a short terms of service (say 4 to 8 years) that still leaves the individual poised for a successful long life career as a civilian. Our current focus on 20 years and a pension is counterproductive for most individuals and the CAF as well. 

Both our recruiting system and training system needs to change to accommodate that. When I hear about the number of folks that we have in holding patterns waiting for their initial trades training in Borden and elsewhere I just shake my head in disbelief. I basically went from end of high school to a short summer vacation (taking Militia courses) to starting my BOTC in August followed immediately by my Basic Arty officer's course followed immediately to being posted as a GPO in my first regiment in July. No delays. I'm amazed that these kids today put up with the ridiculous recruiting and training timelines that they do. People need some certainty and a commitment from the system not to waste their time and lives.

🍻


----------



## Weinie (2 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The CAF continues to have applications that outstrip available positions in most occupations.  The recruiting system, however, needs a top to bottom reset to be faster and more responsive.
> 
> Certain occupations / branches / environments also need some long reflection on how they can better leverage current and future Canadian society for recruiting.  Hundreds of years of tradition unimpeded by progress result in a non-representative population that struggles to reach targets.
> 
> ...


The new CDS has (better have) awareness of these issues, given his job two iterations ago. So now, how do you fix it? 

Put the focus on fixing recruiting...OK. Then you had better fix the through put ability of the training system, that was raped in the tooth to tail exercise that was conducted in the 90's. Again, somewhat fixable in the tenure of the CDS.....but.....................apparently the CDS has other priorities.

"Trudeau also raised eyebrows when he declared in an interview last week that one of the next defence chief's top priorities would be to crack down on right-wing extremism, white supremacy and hate in the Armed Forces."

Navy commander Art McDonald tapped to steer Canadian military as new defence chief | CTV News

If you don't have a viable CAF, the other problems will wither away by themselves .


----------



## FJAG (2 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> The new CDS has (better have) awareness of these issues, given his job two iterations ago. So now, how do you fix it?
> 
> Put the focus on fixing recruiting...OK. Then you had better fix the through put ability of the training system, that was raped in the tooth to tail exercise that was conducted in the 90's. Again, somewhat fixable in the tenure of the CDS.....but.....................apparently the CDS has other priorities.
> 
> ...


It's not an either-or thing. If the CDS's attention span is so short and his scope of control so limited that he's going to get wrapped around this one axle then the CAF is in very serious trouble.


----------



## lenaitch (2 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> We've more than overcome that, we're paying far more than basically any other job for the same credentials / experience that I can think of in Canada, except maybe some hard labour jobs in very limited "gold rush" towns.. Far far more. No one is not joining the CAF or leaving the CAF because of compensation. There may be a perception amongst the general population that it doesn't pay well, which could be addressed, but increasing compensation would likely yield zero positive results for recruiting / retention (and if only we did something like, I dunno, performance measurements, we wouldn't have to guess at that).


 I'm not too sure that's true across the board.  According to Glassdoor.ca, a "typical" air traffic controller makes ~$133,600, and an OPP constable tops out at ~$98,300 (plus OT plus posting bonuses if applicable).  I don't think comparable military trades make anywhere near that.  A lot of the military trades have no civilian equivalent.


----------



## YZT580 (2 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> So, RCMP told you to upgrade your education to be competitive.  Did you do so?
> 
> Or is it easier to whine and complain that people who do have higher qualifications than you are selected instead?


That isn't what his words imply.  The recruiting officer was informing him that he had to have more than the other groups in order to have a chance at being selected.  That is truth and he wasn't whining IMHO.  As one who was involved in training for a number of years I can vouch for the veracity of the simple fact that checking the ethnic or indigenous, the handicapped or another flavour of the year category gets you bounced over others of similar or even better qualifications who wasn't able to tick those boxes.  There is a scoring system so it maybe that 2 years college is trumped by ethnic but a 3 year course reverses it.  As has been mentioned in other forums we are a racist country and prove it every day through our reverse discrimination policies.  But that is entirely off topic.  

1. If we want a sustainable recruitment process the time from application to boot camp must be shortened.  No decent candidate is going to wait 6 to 9 months for a job.   Those who will are either really keen on a military career or of such a low calibre that we don't want  them anyway.
2. We need to recruit right out of high school even for officer candidates.  Sign on the line, get started in your career training and we will pay the college bills: but only after you have completed basic. Which means we either have to be in the schools or at least on the same block and we have to demonstrate the desirability of a military career.  
3.  Somehow, the government of Canada has to demonstrate that it actually has a military and that it is an important facet of our foreign policy.  Showing up for a ramp ceremony or to sign a purchase contract isn't the same thing as demonstrating commitment.
4.   The government of Canada needs to demonstrate in tangible terms that it values both the serving members AND their families through decent and affordable housing which they had at one time until some idiot tied the rent in with the neighbourhood costs, ensuring decent medical coverage and insurance, helping spouses with employment where possible and providing an income supplement for temporary postings to ensure families can stay together.

There is probably more but that is enough to start with.   The 4th point is to help with retention.  Most folks I have talked with in the past left because of family and housing issues and were honestly sorry to have had to do so.


----------



## Weinie (2 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> We can offer summer employment for students while undergoing their education, assistance with their education expenses, training in many skill areas useful on civvy street, a period of employment to gain experience and qualify them for a future civilian career, more post service education and a modest pension and additional part time employment in the reserves afterwards while they pursue their new civilian career and family growth.
> 
> The key here is to do a short terms of service (say 4 to 8 years) that still leaves the individual poised for a successful long life career as a civilian. Our current focus on 20 years and a pension is counterproductive for most individuals and the CAF as well.
> 
> ...


FJAG,

Your current disdain for the sustainment of any type of Regular Force, and to render Canada to the mercy of a mostly Reserve Force, which you trumpet incessantly on here, is growing tiresome. You have also posted, in a separate thread, about strategic capabilities.  I have a proposition for you that will hopefully accommodate both of your desires.

Let's turn the CAF into a fully Reserve Force entity. Then we can meet your all of your domestic criterias of employment/deployment and cutting the salaries and benefits of the Reg Force, which you find very troubling, and transfer that money into having a viable Reserve Force.

Let's also buy 100 nuclear tipped ICBM's, and scatter them across the country. Our current defence allocation of $23B should be more than enough to construct hardened shelters and maintain both the missiles and the Reserves. Then we will have both a strategic capability and a Reserve. 

Win/win.


----------



## ballz (2 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I'm not too sure that's true across the board.  According to Glassdoor.ca, a "typical" air traffic controller makes ~$133,600, and an OPP constable tops out at ~$98,300 (plus OT plus posting bonuses if applicable).  I don't think comparable military trades make anywhere near that.  A lot of the military trades have no civilian equivalent.


I did say "basically any other" implying that there would be exceptions, although I think they are few and far between.

That said, I'd be wary of the OPP comparison. Do they have a system of non-comms and officers as we do? Are you comparing the average OPP officer to the average MP NCM when it would make more sense to compare it to the average NCM MP + MPO salary?

Air traffic controller, way outside my ability to comment on. Maybe it is one of the exceptions.

But, in a more general sense, how many people with a high school education are making $60k+ a year only 4 years out of school? And will be retired at $43k years old with a defined benefit plan (DBP almost doesn't exist nowadays, and certainly not a gold plated one like the CAF)?

How many people with a Bachelor's of History are making $80k 3 years after graduating? (and that's not factoring PLD, LDA, pension, leave, etc.).

My income and wealth has been higher than almost everyone I went through university with, it's surreal. There are very few 31 year olds, in any field, bringing in $107k a year, and only 12 years away from retiring with a $60 or 70k pension for the rest of their life.

Even when we get into the more specialized stuff, like engineering, accounting, etc., the CAF is usually paying more. The amount of Majors I know making $120k a year whose only contribution seems to be turning rations into feces while they wait around to collect their pension is mindboggling, they're making the kind of money you only make as at the Partner level in most professional services.... it takes a good 10-15 years to make Partner, and then you've got to work until at least 55 or so before you can afford to retire... not 43.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> FJAG,
> 
> Your current disdain for the sustainment of any type of Regular Force, and to render Canada to the mercy of a mostly Reserve Force, which you trumpet incessantly on here, is growing tiresome. You have also posted, in a separate thread, about strategic capabilities.  I have a proposition for you that will hopefully accommodate both of your desires.
> 
> ...


Well now you are just being silly.

I've never, ever advocated for a predominantly reserve force. I have never advocated for a draw down of regular force field, air and sea components, just the overly bloated cartel that occupies Ottawa with thousand of useless cubicle drones pushing meaningless paper from desk to desk. The regular force is our peacetime, quick-reaction, flexible commitment to national defence. It is needed and needs to be better equipped and organized as well in order to meet the demands of future conflicts.

Likewise I don't believe that I have ever suggested cutting salaries or benefits for the regular force, just useless headquarters processes and people who neither provide nor enable concrete defence outputs. What I suggest is that as long as we keep sinking defence funds into the ever growing and more expensive self-licking ice cream cone that Ottawa has become we will not be able to sustain any portion of the field, air and sea forces and thus become entirely irrelevant.

I do advocate for a much better organized, equipped and trained reserve force to allow for the expansion of the total force in an emergency rather than leaving it in the doldrums that it's been in for the last half century.

If you want to go to sarcasm then at least get my position right.

🍻


----------



## ballz (2 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> We can offer summer employment for students while undergoing their education, assistance with their education expenses, training in many skill areas useful on civvy street, a period of employment to gain experience and qualify them for a future civilian career, more post service education and a modest pension and additional part time employment in the reserves afterwards while they pursue their new civilian career and family growth.
> 
> The key here is to do a short terms of service (say 4 to 8 years) that still leaves the individual poised for a successful long life career as a civilian. Our current focus on 20 years and a pension is counterproductive for most individuals and the CAF as well.



We already do all of that, don't we?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jan 2021)

Standing joke we had when filling positions in the PS, if you can find a Blind, Black, French speaking Trans, in a wheelchair who was a refugee, then you scored, you have checked off 6 politically correct boxes with one hire. This would then make your bosses happy as all their metrics would increase.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> We already do all of that, don't we?


I think we do most of them in some way or other. My thought is that to deal with some of the recruiting and retention issues is that we use the short tour, "we prepare you for a future civilian life" as an enticement to get people in the door with a finite commitment so that the CAF then know when exactly they will leave and can plan a replacement for them. If the CAF is lucky and has treated them right, the right folks may decide to stay with us while the CAF has the option to lay off those who are not contributing.

It's not so much the projects, which could use tweaking, but the attitude and focus.

🍻


----------



## ballz (3 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> I think we do most of them in some way or other. My thought is that to deal with some of the recruiting and retention issues is that we use the short tour, "we prepare you for a future civilian life" as an enticement to get people in the door with a finite commitment so that the CAF then know when exactly they will leave and can plan a replacement for them. If the CAF is lucky and has treated them right, the right folks may decide to stay with us while the CAF has the option to lay off those who are not contributing.
> 
> It's not so much the projects, which could use tweaking, but the attitude and focus.
> 
> 🍻



The initial TOSs for most are already only 3 years, and most are offered a second TOS at 5 years. I haven't had to do that kind of pers admin in a while, but it varies by trade.

While I like the idea of letting the dead weight go, I believe I've seen that explored a few times for people who's TOS was expiring, and the answer was that you still have to go through the entire Admin Review process to recommend release... in short, declining to offer them a new TOS is not actually an option. You've got to justify if the same way you would justify any other time you are recommending a release. We need a "shooting oneself in the foot" emoji.


----------



## mariomike (3 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> The key here is to do a short terms of service (say 4 to 8 years) that still leaves the individual poised for a successful long life career as a civilian. Our current focus on 20 years and a pension is counterproductive for most individuals and the CAF as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


Why join a profession with the intention to quit after a few years? 

In your next profession, people your age will have a head start on you.  Especially if the new employer is unionized. ( That would include the emergency services, and your position on the seniority list. )

Why not stay in the CAF for whole ride and max-out your pension ( 70% after 35 years )?


----------



## Weinie (3 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> Well now you are just being silly.
> 
> I've never, ever advocated for a predominantly reserve force. I have never advocated for a draw down of regular force field, air and sea components, just the overly bloated cartel that occupies Ottawa with thousand of useless cubicle drones pushing meaningless paper from desk to desk. The regular force is our peacetime, quick-reaction, flexible commitment to national defence. It is needed and needs to be better equipped and organized as well in order to meet the demands of future conflicts.
> 
> ...


Silly me. Your post from October below. There are others that I can post if you want to prolong this.



*Here's the thing. The part-time reservist costs us about 1/6th of a full-time soldier (both in immediate pay and benefits as well as long term pensions).* Converting the reserves to the type of system that I propose is pretty much a wash over current costs based on a limit of 48 days annual mandatory training; the existing four years annual summer training for students; and the existing educational benefits programs. If you yank all the Class B's out of Ottawa where they are merely constituting a workaround the authorized PY limits on the RegF you have even more cash available.

In my proposal, we reduce the existing four divisional headquarters to just two, the ten reserve brigades and the CSSB to five brigade headquarters, and the number of individual units from some 146 non-deployable reserve (that's army, MP and medical) and hybrid units to 52 deployable reserve and hybrid units and 5 non-deployable hybrid units (essentially the depot battalions). That saves a significant high priced staff overhead which can also be laid off for additional cost savings.

I'm looking at the same armories and trg facilities footprint, so that's a wash.

Equipment does constitute a cost. That's a long range process that can also be tied to a national economic recovery process if done right.

*I know this makes no sense to the people in Ottawa who have zero respect for the potential that a properly structured reserve force can bring to the defence table, but the single most wasted funding within DND is for full-time personnel costs (both military and civilian) *that exist at the headquarters level above brigade. If you read Leslie's Report you'll see just how much inflation went on there during the 2004-2011 period.

If we truly get hit with post-Covid cutbacks then our first reaction should be to cut back massively on the administrative headquarters cost that DND/CAF bears (and I do not mean the logistic tail here - that's needed. I mean the administrative leadership and their staff. I've previously said that half of the legal branch could go. Same goes for the public affairs branch ;D) i.e Reg F PYs need to be cut to stop the current and future funding bleed.

*If we need to cut more than that then we should realistically look at again cutting full time PY's at the brigade, wing, fleet level and transferring their equipment to a restructured/reformed reserve.*

The first exercise should not cut our actual defence outputs (merely the administration which badly needs reform anyway) *the second will transfer some of our current defence outputs to a reserve status* which obviously means less responsive force but one with equal capabilities once mobilized.

The entire idea behind my proposal in restructuring and equipping the reserves into deployable entities is to increase our actual defence outputs more commensurate with the existing funding envelope Canada already supplies. Right now everyone in government is talking about maintaining that funding commitment. I guess we'll see. Either way, we need reserve reform.

:cheers:


----------



## FJAG (3 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> The initial TOSs for most are already only 3 years, and most are offered a second TOS at 5 years. I haven't had to do that kind of pers admin in a while, but it varies by trade.
> 
> While I like the idea of letting the dead weight go, I believe I've seen that explored a few times for people who's TOS was expiring, and the answer was that you still have to go through the entire Admin Review process to recommend release... in short, declining to offer them a new TOS is not actually an option. You've got to justify if the same way you would justify any other time you are recommending a release. We need a "shooting oneself in the foot" emoji.


There's a lot to what you say. My last three years before I retired was running a JAG/IM Gp capital project in Ottawa and the problems we had with replacing civ pers (who we'd trained well and were hired away by other departments with better budgets) was mind boggling to me who came from a law firm where we could hire a good and experienced replacement within a week. We also almost lost our CELE major engineer when in mid-project they decided to send him to Afghanistan where he didn't want to go without slotting a replacement. Luckily he decided that he'd had enough of the RegF, pulled the plug, transferred to the reserves and we hired him back for $0.85 on the dollar as a reservist for the rest of the project. Ottawa is where my hair turned grey.

🙂


----------



## mariomike (3 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> According to Glassdoor.ca, a "typical" air traffic controller makes ~$133,600, and an OPP constable tops out at ~$98,300 (plus OT plus posting bonuses if applicable).


Even "ambulance drivers" don't do too bad. ( At least according to the 2011 - 2016 Sunshine List. )








						Salary disclosure for AEMCA applicants
					

The 2011 Sunshine List was released today.   Salary disclosure may be of interest to Ontario Paramedic program applicants, and out-of-province AEMCA equivalency applicants.  City of Toronto: Paramedic Level 1: $138,097.54    ( $515.37 ) Paramedic Level 2: $138,807.39    ( $570.06 ) Paramedic...




					www.army.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> This thread has swerved far away from Base level support being understaffed -- it is taken as written that this is just a symptom of a wider problem, that the Canadian Armed Forces is understaffed, and has problems with recruiting and retention. After all, if all CFBs were magically fully manned tomorrow, then something else would have to be understaffed, and those units would complain about it -- it's a bit of a zero sum game in that respect.
> 
> So what is the actual problem? It could be strongly argued that our traditional recruiting pool of men from small town Canada is demographically dying. (The demographics, present and projected, of the Quebecois population has further implications for the Canadian Army, specifically whether 3 of 9 infantry battalions, and 1 of 3 mechanized brigades, can be sustained as Francophone in the future, but that's probably a sacred cow to be barbecued separately from the rest of the herd). And with our traditional recruiting pool evaporating, we are now turning, grudgingly and in some desperation, to other parts of the population. But we have, as an institution, not exactly been welcoming to the groups we are now forced to see as our future. Closing garrisons in cities didn't help, but neither do some of our other choices. It isn't new -- _Web of Hate _(with a chapter on racism in the CF) was published in 1996 and "Rape in the Military" was a Maclean's cover story in 1998. Our ongoing issues with sexual assault and racist conduct have been in the press for decades, and we as an institution have had those decades to either solve the problem or prove that there was no problem and the media didn't know what they are talking about. We failed, and if we want to embrace a diverse future we have to admit that, fix the problems and move on.
> 
> ...


First Step? Why not end the exile of the CAF to the edges of Canadian society, geographical and otherwise


----------



## FJAG (3 Jan 2021)

mariomike said:


> Why join a profession with the intention to quit after a few years?
> 
> In your next profession, people your age will have a head start on you.  Especially if the new employer is unionized. ( That would include the emergency services, and your position on the seniority list. )
> 
> Why not stay in the CAF for whole ride and max-out your pension ( 70% after 35 years )?


I'm thinking of young folks who can't get their foot in the door because they lack training and experience. They get to a point where they start a young family, possibly with a wife who has a job, and who don't want to go the constantly absent on courses and exercises and posting routine that comes with a long-term career and would rather settle down in one place.

My understanding is that young people these days are more likely to change jobs and even careers several times in their life time. It's those folks I want to cater to by saying "we're okay with that" and we'll help train you for that second career if you give us "x" number of good years of service.

It's just one idea to target a demographic that might not give us a second look otherwise. We'll still need a good number of "careerists" as well.

🍻


Weinie said:


> Silly me. Your post from October below. There are others that I can post if you want to prolong this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of that contradicts what I said.

The focus is on cutting headquarters above the brigade level i.e. Ottawa.

The second issue as also quite logical. IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY because funding from the government isn't sufficient to keep feeding the full-time PY / civil service payrolls then deeper cuts to full-time positions is required in order to preserve defence capabilities. 

DND/CAF has suffered continuously since the 1960s as budgets didn't grow enough to support the number of troops in our forces-in-being. Effectively the defence budget has grown steadily from US$1.7 billion in 1960 to US$21.6 billion in 2018 while the number of PYs has shrunk to one half of what they were. We had a few minor reductions in budgets and two major ones (the two peace dividends in the early nineties when we dropped from US$11.41 to $7.75 over eight years before again growing to US$21.39 in 2011 and the dropping to US$17.78 in 2016). Notwithstanding those drops the trend has been for a steady rise in dollar costs while we lost PYs and defence capabilities (through death by a thousand cuts). Never once did we transfer capabilities to the reserves or work seriously at reforming the system. Prior to Afghanistan we were on a constant decline in PYs while during and after we've maintained a tenuous status quo. 

Military Spending Military Size

Simply put, the new fighter program and the surface combatant programs (not even counting the subs) and post-Covid recovery/reckoning will put DND/CF into the position where they will have to choose accepting a ridiculously low number of ships and planes or cutting personnel. My argument is simply buy the equipment and get rid of the full-time personnel that we don't need day-to-day in favour of devolving those capabilities which are not needed for quick reaction or high skills to a properly reorganized, equipped reserve force that comes at 1/6th of the annual payroll costs as their full-time counterparts.

The only other option that I see is to preserve the sacred cow PYs and have a force that looks pretty on parade but will never be sent into a near peer conflict because their equipment/capability deficiencies will have them die in droves. My personal preference is to empty half of the cubicles in Ottawa and keep the brigades, squadrons and fleets fully manned and equipped and strengthened by a capable reserve.

But then, that's me. Others, especially senior leadership, like seeing the cubicles fully staffed regardless. 

This quote from Leslie's 2011 report on transformation (as the budget was about to start a decline) says it all:



> Based on a series of brain-storming sessions over the winter with a network of some of the best and brightest officers and civil servants destined for more senior leadership roles, a variety of organizational models were discussed and some big ideas were developed to realize efficiencies and new ways of doing things.  Some of these were presented at a large meeting in December 2010 involving the generals, admirals and senior DND civil servants, and it became apparent that the tendency was to argue for the preservation of the status quo within any one particular organization, which is perfectly natural. Though grimly amusing, these interactions proved that consensus has not and will probably never be achieved on any significant change as we are large and complicated, and the different organizations that make up the whole do different things, each of which is believed to be very important by those who are in them.  Once again, perfectly natural and probably true.



🍻


----------



## quadrapiper (3 Jan 2021)

On the communications side, if the CAF can't manage to deliver a comprehensive awareness of its activities, structure, trades, etc. to the cadet organization (a ready-made audience, one of whose three aims is "stimulate an interest of youth in the sea, army and air activities of the Canadian Armed Forces."), I'm not at all shocked at patchy awareness outside the "family."


----------



## Furniture (3 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> I did say "basically any other" implying that there would be exceptions, although I think they are few and far between.
> 
> That said, I'd be wary of the OPP comparison. Do they have a system of non-comms and officers as we do? Are you comparing the average OPP officer to the average MP NCM when it would make more sense to compare it to the average NCM MP + MPO salary?
> 
> ...


The NCM world doesn't seem to have the same problem of being over paid when compared to the skilled trades, which are realistically the closest comparison to military occupations. In general glassdoor.ca had plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, electricians, etc.. making about the same, or more than a MCpl/Sgt without spec pay. They generally make that money without spending months at a time away from loved ones, while also staying in a location of their choosing.

Better compensation may not make the CAF's problems go away on it's own, but combined with better postings, and more posting/deployment/training stability it would likely go a long way toward fixing many of them.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (3 Jan 2021)

WeatherdoG said:


> The NCM world doesn't seem to have the same problem of being over paid when compared to the skilled trades, which are realistically the closest comparison to military occupations. In general glassdoor.ca had plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, electricians, etc.. making about the same, or more than a MCpl/Sgt without spec pay. They generally make that money without spending months at a time away from loved ones, while also staying in a location of their choosing.
> 
> Better compensation may not make the CAF's problems go away on it's own, but combined with better postings, and more posting/deployment/training stability it would likely go a long way toward fixing many of them.


Skilled trades are paid much better civvy side then they are in the CAF. For example as a apprentice I made over 80k and that is without doing much overtime. Once I have my ticket it will be fairly easy to make 100k a year and this is with a job that is only at one work place, not a travelling job. The cons are the vacation sucks in comparison and the pension isn't as good but you also have the advantage of being able to tell your boss off without going to jail.



mariomike said:


> Why join a profession with the intention to quit after a few years?
> 
> In your next profession, people your age will have a head start on you.  Especially if the new employer is unionized. ( That would include the emergency services, and your position on the seniority list. )
> 
> Why not stay in the CAF for whole ride and max-out your pension ( 70% after 35 years )?



Most people intend to stay in the CAF as long as possible when they join. Serving in the CAF quickly drains that out of most people. The 25 years to retirement now really does hurt them as many people in their first contract look at it and go, is it really worth trying to make it until that point? I have also met many people only in because they still had 5 years left to be able to retire, not because they want to be there. I thought I would be a lifer when I started in the CAF, now I don't see myself in for very much longer. Having had civilian experience now, it also opens your eyes to how poorly the CAF treats you. It is always about what the CAF needs, never what is best for the individual even if it is mutually beneficial for the CAF. In some cases they purposely try to hold you back out of fear you will leave (such as taking away civilian trade equivalencies).

As to people having a head start on you, that is 100% true, except most people will jump around company to company now and career to career, very few companies work on the hire at 18 keep to retirement philosophy anymore.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2021)

CAF: Unlimited sick leave.  Defined benefit, indexed pension at 25 years.  Medical coverage for dependents.  Paid training and education throughout your career - including ab initio training where not only is the training provided at no cost, but you are paid to attend, and have your clothing and tools provided at no cost - and that time is pensionable.  For NCMs, at four years of service you will be paid (base pay) more than the average Canadian individual income.  As an officer (GSO), on promotion to Capt you will be paid in the top 25% of Canadian earners (base pay).

Are there parts of the pay scales that should be tweaked?  Perhaps.  The Team Concept drags down skilled trade pay to pay infanteers and bosuns more (even with spec pay).  Are we willing to abandon the team concept?  Willing to pay an Infantry major 20% less than a Nurse major?  

My one minor tweak before doing any of that work (which would be multi-year to design and implement) would be to abolish Cpl 5B pay scales (ie MCpl); replace it with ~200/month allowance for MCpls; and add on Cpl 5 and Cpl 6 incentives.  However, my back of the envelope math suggests that would cost about 1% of the current CAF Reg F pay to implement: So would everyone be willing to take a 1% pay cut to provide Cpls with more incentives as they gain experience?  Or forego a 1% pay increase to fund that improvement?


----------



## FJAG (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> CAF: Unlimited sick leave.  Defined benefit, indexed pension at 25 years.  Medical coverage for dependents.  Paid training and education throughout your career - including ab initio training where not only is the training provided at no cost, but you are paid to attend, and have your clothing and tools provided at no cost - and that time is pensionable.  For NCMs, at four years of service you will be paid (base pay) more than the average Canadian individual income.  As an officer (GSO), on promotion to Capt you will be paid in the top 25% of Canadian earners (base pay).
> 
> Are there parts of the pay scales that should be tweaked?  Perhaps.  The Team Concept drags down skilled trade pay to pay infanteers and bosuns more (even with spec pay).  Are we willing to abandon the team concept?  Willing to pay an Infantry major 20% less than a Nurse major?
> 
> My one minor tweak before doing any of that work (which would be multi-year to design and implement) would be to abolish Cpl 5B pay scales (ie MCpl); replace it with ~200/month allowance for MCpls; and add on Cpl 5 and Cpl 6 incentives.  However, my back of the envelope math suggests that would cost about 1% of the current CAF Reg F pay to implement: So would everyone be willing to take a 1% pay cut to provide Cpls with more incentives as they gain experience?  Or forego a 1% pay increase to fund that improvement?


Or we can ask ourselves as to whether it's fair that government workers across the board have better compensation packages than the vast majority of the public which they serve.

Starting a whole new viewpoint for outrage. Where's the stirring the pot emoji when you really need it. I guess I'll just go with this one:

🧑‍🍳


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> CAF: Unlimited sick leave.  Defined benefit, indexed pension at 25 years.  Medical coverage for dependents.  Paid training and education throughout your career - including ab initio training where not only is the training provided at no cost, but you are paid to attend, and have your clothing and tools provided at no cost - and that time is pensionable.  For NCMs, at four years of service you will be paid (base pay) more than the average Canadian individual income.  As an officer (GSO), on promotion to Capt you will be paid in the top 25% of Canadian earners (base pay).
> 
> Are there parts of the pay scales that should be tweaked?  Perhaps.  The Team Concept drags down skilled trade pay to pay infanteers and bosuns more (even with spec pay).  Are we willing to abandon the team concept?  Willing to pay an Infantry major 20% less than a Nurse major?
> 
> My one minor tweak before doing any of that work (which would be multi-year to design and implement) would be to abolish Cpl 5B pay scales (ie MCpl); replace it with ~200/month allowance for MCpls; and add on Cpl 5 and Cpl 6 incentives.  However, my back of the envelope math suggests that would cost about 1% of the current CAF Reg F pay to implement: So would everyone be willing to take a 1% pay cut to provide Cpls with more incentives as they gain experience?  Or forego a 1% pay increase to fund that improvement?



You mean setting up an education benefit so that people have to quit the military (completely, no sneaking back to help out the Cadets etc now) so you can access tens of thousands of dollars of education funding isn't a really good idea for retaining your most learning motivated personnel?


----------



## mariomike (3 Jan 2021)

I thought a pun was the lowest form of wit ---- When you don't think of it first.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> CAF: Unlimited sick leave.  Defined benefit, indexed pension at 25 years.  Medical coverage for dependents.  Paid training and education throughout your career - including ab initio training where not only is the training provided at no cost, but you are paid to attend, and have your clothing and tools provided at no cost - and that time is pensionable.  For NCMs, at four years of service you will be paid (base pay) more than the average Canadian individual income.  As an officer (GSO), on promotion to Capt you will be paid in the top 25% of Canadian earners (base pay).


Your analysis fails to include that, as military, it is extremely difficult for a spouse to have a stable career.  They essentially have to start over anytime we are posted and often have to take jobs where they are overqualified, making much less than what they would have made had they been stable in one location.  

A better comparison would be to compare household income.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2021)

Valid point.  And I made a mistake - the Capt(0) GSO is in the top 25% of household income (not individual).

So all Reg F Capts are in the top 25%.  All Reg F LCols are in the top 10% of household income.  All general and flag officers are in the top 5%.

All Cpls are in the top 50%.  Non-spec WOs enter the top 25% with 2 years in rank.

Again, those are based on the 2018 pay rates, and do not include allowances or benefits.










						Household Income Percentile Calculator for Canada Including 17 Household Income Statistics for 2022 | The Kickass Entrepreneur
					

To be in the top 1% in Canada in household income in 2021,  your household will have to earn $306,710 in annual income. This data varies across Canada with Alberta having the highest




					www.thekickassentrepreneur.com
				








						Pay rates for officers - Canada.ca
					

Pay rates for all officer ranks in the Canadian Armed Forces.




					www.canada.ca
				








						Pay rates for non-commissioned members - Canada.ca
					

Pay rates for Non-Commissioned Members in the Canadian Armed Forces.




					www.canada.ca
				




*What Do The 1%, 5%, 25%, 50%, and 75% in Canada Earn for Household Income?*​
The 1% household income in Canada earns $306,710
The 5% household income in Canada earns $157,486
The 10% household income in Canada earns $122,274
The 25% household income in Canada earns $78,820
The 50% household income in Canada earns $44,807
The 75% household income in Canada earns $21,811


----------



## Furniture (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> CAF: Unlimited sick leave.  Defined benefit, indexed pension at 25 years.  Medical coverage for dependents.  Paid training and education throughout your career - including ab initio training where not only is the training provided at no cost, but you are paid to attend, and have your clothing and tools provided at no cost - and that time is pensionable.  For NCMs, at four years of service you will be paid (base pay) more than the average Canadian individual income.  As an officer (GSO), on promotion to Capt you will be paid in the top 25% of Canadian earners (base pay).
> 
> Are there parts of the pay scales that should be tweaked?  Perhaps.  The Team Concept drags down skilled trade pay to pay infanteers and bosuns more (even with spec pay).  Are we willing to abandon the team concept?  Willing to pay an Infantry major 20% less than a Nurse major?
> 
> My one minor tweak before doing any of that work (which would be multi-year to design and implement) would be to abolish Cpl 5B pay scales (ie MCpl); replace it with ~200/month allowance for MCpls; and add on Cpl 5 and Cpl 6 incentives.  However, my back of the envelope math suggests that would cost about 1% of the current CAF Reg F pay to implement: So would everyone be willing to take a 1% pay cut to provide Cpls with more incentives as they gain experience?  Or forego a 1% pay increase to fund that improvement?


We want young healthy people, so sick leave isn't going to attract most of them. Our pension becomes available after 25 years of service, something that at 18-25 seems like an eternity away, and most young people expect to change jobs often. Paid training is a bonus, or would be if we offered actual red seal training to trades, or accredited training in those other areas that aren't trades. We don't, so upon release you need to go pay for more training/testing anyway. As for paid uniforms, we aren't unique in that even among civilian employers. 

Comparing NCM pay against the average Canadian income is not a fair reflection of who we should compare pay against against, if we want the best of Canada's youth. If we want part time, minimum wage effort from our troops, then that's a great standard to use.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 Jan 2021)

WeatherdoG said:


> . . .  if we want the best of Canada's youth. If we want part time, minimum wage effort from our troops, then that's a great standard to use.



But do we really want the "best" or is that actually a throwaway tagline.  Maybe "be the best you can be" is more the desired requirement.  How does an employer define "the best" for potential employees?  Despite a parent telling little Johnny or Joanie that they are the best not all of Canada's youth can be the best.  So, the top 5% or 10% or 25%?  And how do you measure that - education, ambition, IQ, CFAT scores, fastest runner, able to lift more weight . . .

The CAF is never going to get (and in the past, never got) "the best".   They most assuredly have recruited and retained some with great potential who rose to that potential - so a few may have *become the best* that Canada could provide.  But the majority have been the average.  They started out as average and in most cases had an average military career (either short or long), provided good service and were proud of what they accomplished.

Having had "part time, minimum wage" employees (and been one - many, many, many years ago) I found nothing wrong with the effort put forth by most, certainly not worthy of suggesting anything they do is sub-standard.


----------



## YZT580 (3 Jan 2021)

And then there is the difficulty of getting your part-time soldier released from his full time job.  Although there are some incentives offered to employers they aren't nearly enough to compensate him for having an empty desk or machine that is costing him money and sitting idle.  So your part-timer is either self-employed ( and who can afford to shutter his business for 4 weeks while he eats snakes and crawls through the bush) or maybe for 6 months whilst they are posted to HMCS Halifax off the coast of Norway, or he is at the lower end of the skills ladder and more or less redundant (no  slight intended and my profound apologies to those of you who have bosses who support the military by red-circling your PY and are not a part of the later group).  Reserves may be a good plan but only if they are fully supported by the national government and the total business community.


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> You mean setting up an education benefit so that people have to quit the military (completely, no sneaking back to help out the Cadets etc now) so you can access tens of thousands of dollars of education funding isn't a really good idea for retaining your most learning motivated personnel?


I thought that got amended so you could be in the Supp Res and still get the benefit?


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2021)

There are also a variety of in service educational support programs in place.


----------



## lenaitch (3 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> I did say "basically any other" implying that there would be exceptions, although I think they are few and far between.
> 
> That said, I'd be wary of the OPP comparison. Do they have a system of non-comms and officers as we do? Are you comparing the average OPP officer to the average MP NCM when it would make more sense to compare it to the average NCM MP + MPO salary?
> 
> ...


 The best comparators would an MP Cpl (base rank) at top 'time increment' pay vs. a 1st Class Cst (base rank, top time increment, 3 yrs).  Averages are fairly meaningless because income factors don't balance out.  I tried in vain to figure out the MP rate but 'best guessed' it at the mid-$70K.  There are 'military factors' in the website but I didn't know how to interpret that.  An OPP 1st Class Cst is $98,355, base rate .

Pension is 2%/yr x years of service available w/o penalty when age+service=80 (municipal services are different).

All police services have para-military rank structures; NCM - Cst, Sgt, S/Sgt, S/Mjr; Senior Officers - from Inspector on up.   Progression is incrementally from the bottom up except in very, very rare circumstances.  Legislatively, eligibility is a high school diploma (grade 12) but realistically some level of post secondary, previous work/life experience, etc. is needed to make an applicant competitive.


----------



## mariomike (3 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Pension is 2%/yr x years of service available w/o penalty when age+service=80 (municipal services are different ).


The three municipal emergency services are covered by OMERS.
Supplemental Plan (omers.com)
"The OMERS Supplemental Plan for Police, Firefighters and Paramedics (the "Supplemental Plan") offers optional benefits for members of the police sector, firefighters and paramedics."


----------



## mariomike (3 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> My understanding is that young people these days are more likely to change jobs and even careers several times in their life time. It's those folks I want to cater to by saying "we're okay with that" and we'll help train you for that second career if you give us "x" number of good years of service.


Changing employers can, sometimes, be a good idea for a better quality of life. But, I wish I had a nickel for every old guy I heard say their time in the CAF, or US Armed Forces, was the best time of their lives.  I heard my maternal grand-father say that. I mean look at our "Getting back in" thread. Sure, some miss the pay, benefits and security. But, I also got the sense that for many, it was the best time of their lives.


----------



## stoker dave (3 Jan 2021)

As a hands-on practicing professional engineer, my opinion is that CAF pays their engineers (counting all the benefits, vacation, pension, training, etc.) VERY well compared to civilian employers. 

I would further add that as an engineer I have almost zero job security.  One screw-up and I am out the door.  One corporate re-organization to change focus, types work to be undertaken, projects awarded, etc. and I am out the door.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> I thought that got amended so you could be in the Supp Res and still get the benefit?


Nope. I just did my out-clearance and, unless I misunderstood the briefing, unless you're 'all the way out' you don't get it.


----------



## MJP (3 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Nope. I just did my out-clearance and, unless I misunderstood the briefing, unless you're 'all the way out' you don't get it.


That use to be the case but right from the VAC Website

You should apply for the Education and Training Benefit if:


you were honourably released from the Canadian Armed Forces (Regular or Reserve Force) on or after April 1, 2006, or are a member of the Supplementary Reserve and;
you meet the “length of service” requirement:
at least 12 years of authorized days of CAF Service (4382 days) to receive up to $84,311.24 (2021) or
at least 6 years of authorized days of CAF service (2191 days) to receive up to $42,155.62 (2021).


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> There are also a variety of in service educational support programs in place.


Yes, there are. But AFAIK none of them shovel me out $80k (after 12 years service). 

Potentially, just as we are seeing experienced NCMs and Officers coming into their 'leadership prime', they'll be gone, especially if they're keen on using the benefit to get a degree or something more complex than a buckshee certificate of some kind.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2021)

MJP said:


> That use to be the case but right from the VAC Website
> 
> You should apply for the Education and Training Benefit if:
> 
> ...


Ah, seen. Thnaks for the clarification.

Not an option in my case but there you go: the truth will out!


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Ah, seen. Thnaks for the clarification.
> 
> Not an option in my case but there you go: the truth will out!


Have you contacted the CAF pension office?  You should - otherwise they'll wait a year to reach out.  Your pension summary should say how many days of CAF service you have.  In a 30 year part-time career of 50 days a year you'd be at 1500 - add in early summers of 100+ days on course / instructing, and a handful of years where you did additional part-time tasks and it's not impossible that you reached the low-end threshold.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Have you contacted the CAF pension office?  You should - otherwise they'll wait a year to reach out.  Your pension summary should say how many days of CAF service you have.  In a 30 year part-time career of 50 days a year you'd be at 1500 - add in early summers of 100+ days on course / instructing, and a handful of years where you did additional part-time tasks and it's not impossible that you reached the low-end threshold.


Yes I did, thank you for checking Herr Kernel, and they were very helpful! 

That was the only good thing that came out of 'the incident': where my previous unit did not process my pay sheets for a full year, because of the 'special' way they mismanaged my Class A pay, so that the pension office contacted me assuming that I had retired. Seriously.

I'd recommend that anyone with questions about how they calculate your pensionable time etc give them a call.

They've included my previous Reg F service in the calculation, so it looks like I qualify for the full meal deal. Astonishingly enough.

That should be enough to get me qualified to 'Evil Genius' level, a la Pinky and the Brain, right? Well, in my case, maybe 'Evil Genius' Court Jester-Like Sidekick'


----------



## Furniture (3 Jan 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> But do we really want the "best" or is that actually a throwaway tagline.  Maybe "be the best you can be" is more the desired requirement.  How does an employer define "the best" for potential employees?  Despite a parent telling little Johnny or Joanie that they are the best not all of Canada's youth can be the best.  So, the top 5% or 10% or 25%?  And how do you measure that - education, ambition, IQ, CFAT scores, fastest runner, able to lift more weight . . .
> 
> The CAF is never going to get (and in the past, never got) "the best".   They most assuredly have recruited and retained some with great potential who rose to that potential - so a few may have *become the best* that Canada could provide.  But the majority have been the average.  They started out as average and in most cases had an average military career (either short or long), provided good service and were proud of what they accomplished.
> 
> Having had "part time, minimum wage" employees (and been one - many, many, many years ago) I found nothing wrong with the effort put forth by most, certainly not worthy of suggesting anything they do is sub-standard.


So you ignored my point over a couple of word choices.

You are correct the CAF doesn't need the best, but we also need people willing to commit more than the average worker. We need people willing to do dangerous work, in harsh conditions, at short notice, often for prolonged periods of time. That type of commitment is going to be driven by either compensation, or patriotism. Canadians as a general rule don't do "God, Queen, and Country", so we are left with predominantly compensation. Compensation doesn't have to directly be pay, but people must feel like their commitment is rewarded with either money or time.

I believe you're intentionally being obtuse, and I'm not really sure why. If minimum wage, and part time was sufficient for the CAF that's what the CAF would be paid right now. It's not as if the government has any great love of soldiers/sailors/airmen, and therefore has decided to lavish them with more money than is necessary...


----------



## ballz (3 Jan 2021)

mariomike said:


> Why join a profession with the intention to quit after a few years?
> 
> In your next profession, people your age will have a head start on you.  Especially if the new employer is unionized. ( That would include the emergency services, and your position on the seniority list. )
> 
> Why not stay in the CAF for whole ride and max-out your pension ( 70% after 35 years )?



MM, I mean this in a friendly way, "okay boomer"  This post is so something my Dad would say, but it's completely out of tune with millennials and probably even more so with Gen Zers.

How about because of "happiness." I can't take money to my grave, so I'd like to at least be happy on my way there.

I'm leaving $107k a year, gold-plated pension which I'd only be 12 years away from, 5 weeks annual vacation (which is more like 8 weeks with how we do leave), for $60k, no pension, 3 weeks annual vacation. That's without factoring in that I'd likely be Major in another year. And yes, I'll be starting behind my colleagues who I did my CPA program with who are all 25-28, because they have 3-5 years of public practice experience and I have none, so they'll likely be supervising me at first. If that doesn't demonstrate how much more valuable intangibles are than compensation packages, I don't know what will.




WeatherdoG said:


> It's not as if the government has any great love of soldiers/sailors/airmen, and therefore has decided to lavish them with more money than is necessary...



No, definitely not a deliberate decision out of good will, just our sheer dumb luck of having our compensation tied to the public service, who are definitely being lavished with far far more money than is necessary / required / optimal / sustainable.

I think this thread has made me realize we need trade-based salaries though, as complex as that may get, it'd probably be worth it.


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> I think this thread has made me realize we need trade-based salaries though, as complex as that may get, it'd probably be worth it.


Agreed.  The Aussies may be on to something there.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> MM, I mean this in a friendly way, "okay boomer"  This post is so something my Dad would say, but it's completely out of tune with millennials and probably even more so with Gen Zers.
> 
> How about because of "happiness." I can't take money to my grave, so I'd like to at least be happy on my way there.
> 
> ...


Cash that pension out, tax shelter as much as possible and then smash the rest in to the stock market in both a LIRA and a cash account.

It should be a decent amount of coin and there is a lot of hidden value atm.  With any luck, you wont need to work for much longer.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2021)

There are values in taking a deferred annuity instead of the transfer value: access to retirement medical and dental plans (paying 50%) plus indexing to that annuity gives a solid fixed income base to your portfolio; put the remainder into the stock market.  You want a blend of fixed income and market in your retirement plan; if you look at the CAF pension as being ~25K/year, indexed from the day you leave once you reach the specified age, plus med and dent coverage - it's not necessarily the best option to take the TV.

Don't forget - a large portion of the TV will be taxed in your hands at your top marginal rate in the year when you receive it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> There are values in taking a deferred annuity instead of the transfer value: access to retirement medical and dental plans (paying 50%) plus indexing to that annuity gives a solid fixed income base to your portfolio; put the remainder into the stock market.  You want a blend of fixed income and market in your retirement plan; if you look at the CAF pension as being ~25K/year, indexed from the day you leave once you reach the specified age, plus med and dent coverage - it's not necessarily the best option to take the TV.
> 
> Don't forget - a large portion of the TV will be taxed in your hands at your top marginal rate in the year when you receive it.


This is all true but at the end of the day it's all about your risk tolerance. Guaranteed money is nice but who can predict what life is going to be like when someone in their 30s is 60.


----------



## FJAG (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> There are values in taking a deferred annuity instead of the transfer value: access to retirement medical and dental plans (paying 50%) plus indexing to that annuity gives a solid fixed income base to your portfolio; put the remainder into the stock market.  You want a blend of fixed income and market in your retirement plan; if you look at the CAF pension as being ~25K/year, indexed from the day you leave once you reach the specified age, plus med and dent coverage - it's not necessarily the best option to take the TV.
> 
> Don't forget - a large portion of the TV will be taxed in your hands at your top marginal rate in the year when you receive it.


When I transferred out of the Reg F into the reserves after 13 years in 1981, I took a return on contributions, put it all into an RRSP and it did very nicely BUT with 20/20 hindsight and with the elements of the reserve superannuation plan which I got into in the last few years of service (and considering that I beat the odds and am still alive) I think I would have been better off in the long run with a deferred annuity. Unfortunately my 30 somethingish brain and a lack of any financial advice during my release/transfer processing kinda left me flipping a coin. The flip was greatly influenced by the fact that I was going to law school for three years, wasn't sure yet as to whether or not my wife would have a teaching position in Winnipeg, had two rug rats, had just bought a house (with an assumable 9% mortgage when the going rate was 18%) and really wasn't sure whether or not I would need the returned contributions to see us through. Luckily things clicked and we did okay. (Boy could I have used that education benefit in those days)

When I finally retired I had the option to buy back those years but the interest that I had to pay was absolutely ridiculous and was a quick nonstarter.

The lesson here is that a deferred annuity might just be a very good deal if you can get by without the return of contributions. Get good financial advice on what your downstream outcomes might be for each of your options.

🍻


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Valid point.  And I made a mistake - the Capt(0) GSO is in the top 25% of household income (not individual).
> 
> So all Reg F Capts are in the top 25%.  All Reg F LCols are in the top 10% of household income.  All general and flag officers are in the top 5%.
> 
> ...



Are civilian jobs with equivalent required skills and responsibilities also within the same relative pay?  How much does a non-destructive test technician makes on the civilian side?  How much does a mid-level manager makes in the civilian world?  How much does someone managing 3-400 people and north of $50M in O&M make in the civilian sector?  What about high level managements of large companies? 

Our salaries need to be at the very least on-par with what someone would make civilian-side with equivalent credentials.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Are civilian jobs with equivalent required skills and responsibilities also within the same relative pay?  How much does a non-destructive test technician makes on the civilian side?  How much does a mid-level manager makes in the civilian world?  How much does someone managing 3-400 people and north of $50M in O&M make in the civilian sector?  What about high level managements of large companies?
> 
> Our salaries need to be at the very least on-par with what someone would make civilian-side with equivalent credentials.


I would say this is not a fair comparison because those in the military operating at, say, a middle management level, would have about as much chance of being successful in the civvy's job as a civvy transferring directly into an equivalently paid military job would be. 

I've seen quite a few 'middle and upper management level' military folks try to make it in the civilian world. 

Mostly, unless they are trades people (or pilots) slotting into directly comparable civilian jobs, they limp along on their pensions (thank God they have that income) while making various desperate, failed attempts at launching a civilian career. It's hard to watch (except for people I would describe as a$$holes, then it's hugely enjoyable of course).

Most of the time it isn't pretty, and a 10% success rate is probably about right.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I would say this is not a fair comparison because those in the military operating at, say, a middle management level, would have about as much chance of being successful in the civvy's job as a civvy transferring directly into an equivalently paid military job would be.
> 
> I've seen quite a few 'middle and upper management level' military folks try to make it in the civilian world.
> 
> ...


I am comparing salaries vs skills/responsibilities.  Not a potential to jump ship.  

Also, we don't hang out in the same circles I guess. The vast majority of people I know that jumped on the civilian side for non-flying jobs (ie: management/leadership roles) were highly successful and make a lot more than what they made in the CAF.

As Richard Branson said, "Train people well enough so they can leave, treat them well enough so they don't want to."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Jan 2021)

EDIT: This response is to Max a couple of posts back.  I'm a phone moron.



No they don't....your company trained you on thier dime to know what you know and if you screw up your getting moved and not fired. 

If you think that then jump to that "equivalent " civilian job.....dont think you'll find it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Jan 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> EDIT: This response is to Max a couple of posts back.  I'm a phone moron.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Edit: Nevermind, I figured it out.

In the last year, I had four headhunters contact me for jobs of the same relative skills/responsibilities (two were hard no-fly, one was hybrid, one was a pilot job).  I don't need to find them, they seem to find me.  I am just not interested at the moment, given I am a few years away from a pension. This is not unique to me. Friends have similar experiences.  Some have taken the jobs.

Our compensation package should be commensurate to the market, just like CFHA is adamant to make sure PMQ prices are on par with the local market.


----------



## ballz (4 Jan 2021)

Yes, we should be paid commensurate to the market, and the majority of us need a serious pay cut to do so.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Jan 2021)

ballz said:


> Yes, we should be paid commensurate to the market, and the majority of us need a serious pay cut to do so.


I wholeheartedly agree with you.  But that is not a popular position I am sure.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jan 2021)

And make the pay cut retroactive to 10 years ago, give everyone a generous 6 months to repay the crown.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Jan 2021)

We aren't getting any pay cuts. The narrative that CAF members are overpaid is just a distraction from the real issues.

The CAF's problems can all be attributed to very poor organization efficiency when it comes to resource allocation.  

Both the Regular Force and Reserve Force are structurally unsound.  If the Reg Force is overweight though, the Reserves are morbidly obese.


----------



## FJAG (4 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> And make the pay cut retroactive to 10 years ago, give everyone a generous 6 months to repay the crown.


That's okay with me seeing as I've been out now for 11 years.


----------



## Mediman14 (4 Jan 2021)

The Military is great opportunity for an career and stable income. But probably some work needs to be done with the pensions. However some places don't even offer a pension. As a teenager, I always wanted to be in the Military, I wanted that pride, I wanted to wear that uniform. The first opportunity I got to join, I did. 
   IMO, the shortage is not from the supply system or from the uniform or even how you are paid. The shortage is from the culture within itself. Say what you like, the fact is that the military is not what it used to be. In my 20 years serving, it started off with lots of comradery no matter what the task was, we looked after one another regardless of who you are. Even sweeping the floors was fun!!! Now, many see it as punishment.  As a Pte/ Cpl I loved going to work. We worked hard and played hard. I met some of the best people on this planet, I am grateful for the experience and the opportunity to serve.
   As the generations carry on, many but not all troops that I seen, see things as "what you can do for me".  It became very frustrating as a Snr NCO, and then the politics involved had became mind numbing at it's best. I am not speaking on behalf of everyone but in my general experience, especially within the Medical Branch in my last 10 years of service. I have seen so much. There was so much back stabbing, it had became a game of who liked you and who didn't. Some people in Snr positions only came with their own agenda and how it benefited them. 
   Like I said before, IMO, the military is not what it used to be.


----------



## Furniture (4 Jan 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We aren't getting any pay cuts. The narrative that CAF members are overpaid is just a distraction from the real issues.
> 
> *The CAF's problems can all be attributed to very poor organization efficiency when it comes to resource allocation. *
> 
> Both the Regular Force and Reserve Force are structurally unsound.  If the Reg Force is overweight though, the Reserves are morbidly obese.


I'm not sure all problems are related to that point, but a lot definitely are. 

My trade set up it's employment and training structure to support the war in Afghanistan. When combat operations stopped, we were left with an employment structure that fails to meet our current needs, and significantly contributes to our retention issues.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Jan 2021)

Mediman14 said:


> The Military is great opportunity for an career and stable income. But probably some work needs to be done with the pensions. However some places don't even offer a pension. As a teenager, I always wanted to be in the Military, I wanted that pride, I wanted to wear that uniform. The first opportunity I got to join, I did.
> IMO, the shortage is not from the supply system or from the uniform or even how you are paid. The shortage is from the culture within itself. Say what you like, the fact is that the military is not what it used to be. In my 20 years serving, it started off with lots of comradery no matter what the task was, we looked after one another regardless of who you are. Even sweeping the floors was fun!!! Now, many see it as punishment.  As a Pte/ Cpl I loved going to work. We worked hard and played hard. I met some of the best people on this planet, I am grateful for the experience and the opportunity to serve.
> As the generations carry on, many but not all troops that I seen, see things as "what you can do for me".  It became very frustrating as a Snr NCO, and then the politics involved had became mind numbing at it's best. I am not speaking on behalf of everyone but in my general experience, especially within the Medical Branch in my last 10 years of service. I have seen so much. There was so much back stabbing, it had became a game of who liked you and who didn't. Some people in Snr positions only came with their own agenda and how it benefited them.
> Like I said before, IMO, the military is not what it used to be.


What you're probably describing is the way that leadership has changed over time. 

No one sweeps floors for 'fun' unless they have great leaders who fully committed and are in there with them, up to their elbows.


----------



## Mediman14 (4 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> What you're probably describing is the way that leadership has changed over time.
> 
> No one sweeps floors for 'fun' unless they have great leaders who fully committed and are in there with them, up to their elbows.


We did not sweep the floors for fun, what I am saying is that when we did sweep the floors on a friday afternoon or any day, we made it into a fun time! We laughed and had fun doing it. Our Supervisors at the time never helped us, but it did not matter. I found that those supervisors never placed themselves in a position to take away from others, but yet they where great to deal with. They looked after us.
   Fast forward to now, most (not all) are out for themselves. Some even look for ways to get you in trouble.


----------



## mariomike (4 Jan 2021)

Mediman14 said:


> We did not sweep the floors for fun, what I am saying is that when we did sweep the floors on a friday afternoon or any day, we made it into a fun time! We laughed and had fun doing it.


Reminds me of something I heard when I could not have been more than nine, maybe ten, years old. But, I remembered it, and have tried to follow since, "In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and - SNAP - the job's a game."

Helped in the Army ( PRes ) too, because those M135s were not going to wash themselves.


----------



## stoker dave (4 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Mostly, unless they are trades people (or pilots) slotting into directly comparable civilian jobs, they limp along on their pensions (thank God they have that income) while making various desperate, failed attempts at launching a civilian career. It's hard to watch (except for people I would describe as a$$holes, then it's hugely enjoyable of course).
> 
> Most of the time it isn't pretty, and a 10% success rate is probably about right.


In my experience, that is exactly true.

Suppose someone from DND says they are responsible for a a $50M project.  They then think they can leave the government and work for a company executing $50M projects.   That is completely false. 

On the government side, their responsibility is usually glorified contract management providing oversight to a contractor executing a statement of work.  

The contractor is responsible for a whole lot more:  resource allocation, hiring and staffing, schedule, cash flow, delivery of the necessary goods and services, quality assurance, returning a profit, internal and client audits, compliance with all the laws and regulations, etc.  The contractor also has to maintain good client relations and keep an eye out to win the next project.    It is much, much, much harder to execute a project than watch someone else do all the work.


----------



## TCM621 (4 Jan 2021)

Mediman14 said:


> The Military is great opportunity for an career and stable income. But probably some work needs to be done with the pensions. However some places don't even offer a pension. As a teenager, I always wanted to be in the Military, I wanted that pride, I wanted to wear that uniform. The first opportunity I got to join, I did.
> IMO, the shortage is not from the supply system or from the uniform or even how you are paid. The shortage is from the culture within itself. Say what you like, the fact is that the military is not what it used to be. In my 20 years serving, it started off with lots of comradery no matter what the task was, we looked after one another regardless of who you are. Even sweeping the floors was fun!!! Now, many see it as punishment.  As a Pte/ Cpl I loved going to work. We worked hard and played hard. I met some of the best people on this planet, I am grateful for the experience and the opportunity to serve.
> As the generations carry on, many but not all troops that I seen, see things as "what you can do for me".  It became very frustrating as a Snr NCO, and then the politics involved had became mind numbing at it's best. I am not speaking on behalf of everyone but in my general experience, especially within the Medical Branch in my last 10 years of service. I have seen so much. There was so much back stabbing, it had became a game of who liked you and who didn't. Some people in Snr positions only came with their own agenda and how it benefited them.
> Like I said before, IMO, the military is not what it used to be.


It's the play hard part that is deader than a door nail. I remember being looked into a compound for a Xmas dinner. The booze flowed freely, everyone had fun, we were all drunken animals but the CoC kept the nonsense to a minimum. Fights were quickly broken up and the offenders sent to bed under escort of one of the Jacks. We had a few women in the regiment at the time who were, shall we say, popular with the drunk twenty something men but they were well protected. Any behavior that went beyond being a drunken idiot was dealt with harshly, with a beating if necessary, but I can't remember anyone doing anything that warranted something beyond removing the moron and making him do extras hungover. I bet most of those never went higher than the pl comd but it got the job done.

Now we kept the worst aspects of military life and got rid of the good aspects. We used to get people interest in the military by inviting them to the mess for 2 dollar beers (which was about half the price than at a bar at the time), them we would spend 2 hours talking his ear off about all the cool stuff we did. A lot of those guys ended up at the recruiting center. How the hell do you get people to the mess at full downtown prices with a police force that is just itching to hassle people coming out of the mess?

I understand we have to change with the times and the Airborne thing ruined it for the rest of us but we have become so corporate that we can't function as a military anymore. We are basically a poorly run corporation that is in the mission business because we are not capable of being in the war business.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jan 2021)

stoker dave said:


> In my experience, that is exactly true.
> 
> Suppose someone from DND says they are responsible for a a $50M project.  They then think they can leave the government and work for a company executing $50M projects.   That is completely false.
> 
> ...


... and the civilian workday never starts at 0930 after (notional) PT or stops for long, leisurely 'coffee breaks' where one can pontificate at length, on company time, about nothing important to the business.


----------



## dimsum (5 Jan 2021)

TCM621 said:


> We used to get people interest in the military by inviting them to the mess for 2 dollar beers (which was about half the price than at a bar at the time), them we would spend 2 hours talking his ear off about all the cool stuff we did. A lot of those guys ended up at the recruiting center.


I mean, that's how I got in...  😉


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> I mean, that's how I got in...  😉


If it helps, it doesn't show. Much


----------



## Mediman14 (5 Jan 2021)

TCM621 said:


> It's the play hard part that is deader than a door nail. I remember being looked into a compound for a Xmas dinner. The booze flowed freely, everyone had fun, we were all drunken animals but the CoC kept the nonsense to a minimum. Fights were quickly broken up and the offenders sent to bed under escort of one of the Jacks. We had a few women in the regiment at the time who were, shall we say, popular with the drunk twenty something men but they were well protected. Any behavior that went beyond being a drunken idiot was dealt with harshly, with a beating if necessary, but I can't remember anyone doing anything that warranted something beyond removing the moron and making him do extras hungover. I bet most of those never went higher than the pl comd but it got the job done.
> 
> Now we kept the worst aspects of military life and got rid of the good aspects. We used to get people interest in the military by inviting them to the mess for 2 dollar beers (which was about half the price than at a bar at the time), them we would spend 2 hours talking his ear off about all the cool stuff we did. A lot of those guys ended up at the recruiting center. How the hell do you get people to the mess at full downtown prices with a police force that is just itching to hassle people coming out of the mess?
> 
> I understand we have to change with the times and the Airborne thing ruined it for the rest of us but we have become so corporate that we can't function as a military anymore. We are basically a poorly run corporation that is in the mission business because we are not capable of being in the war business.


We are really not in the war business at all, not even sure what business we are in! However the CAF is heading (if not already) in a really big mess. IMO, it starts with Leadership and the lack accountability that follows . When was the last time someone heard Snr Leadership admit to a mistake? I personally don’t recall hearing any! Even if there was any mistakes, it gets swept away.
   The CAF needs a major overhaul, it’s documentation and orders ( CANFORGEN and any orders) needs to be revamped. That is tall task. The CAF needs a open minded approach to change things. Those who are not open minded, should be out of the decision making process all together.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2021)

Canadian Forces progressively sound like our leaders download buzz word generators to see who can compete for the most corporate sounding business executives as possible. 

You don't need a 7 page set of orders complete with commanders vision, intent and scheme of manouver to finish work at lunch, change, and head to the legion for an afternoon of briefs.


----------



## Mediman14 (5 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Canadian Forces progressively sound like our leaders download buzz word generators to see who can compete for the most corporate sounding business executives as possible.
> 
> You don't need a 7 page set of orders complete with commanders vision, intent and scheme of manouver to finish work at lunch, change, and head to the legion for an afternoon of briefs.


I have to agree with you. What ever happen to keeping thing simple?? Your comment on "Canadian Forces progressively sound like our leaders download buzz word generators to see who can compete for the most corporate sounding business executives as possible" pretty much sounds looking after themselves! Like it is a competition who could out word each other to get recognize better than the next. All talk no action. Sounds like an government official or Snr Brass.


----------



## TCM621 (5 Jan 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Canadian Forces progressively sound like our leaders download buzz word generators to see who can compete for the most corporate sounding business executives as possible.
> 
> You don't need a 7 page set of orders complete with commanders vision, intent and scheme of manouver to finish work at lunch, change, and head to the legion for an afternoon of briefs.


You forgot GBA+.


----------



## TCM621 (5 Jan 2021)

Mediman14 said:


> We are really not in the war business at all, not even sure what business we are in! However the CAF is heading (if not already) in a really big mess. IMO, it starts with Leadership and the lack accountability that follows . When was the last time someone heard Snr Leadership admit to a mistake? I personally don’t recall hearing any! Even if there was any mistakes, it gets swept away.
> The CAF needs a major overhaul, it’s documentation and orders ( CANFORGEN and any orders) needs to be revamped. That is tall task. The CAF needs a open minded approach to change things. Those who are not open minded, should be out of the decision making process all together.


The last person to push change thru was Hillier and it actually ended up making things worse. He only managed to get half way thru before he retired and then they tried to revert back to the old way while still keeping the new commands. It slowed things down rather than making us more agile which was his intent.

Then Leslie did up his huge analysis and it contained a lot of good recommendations. Then he retired and everyone ignored it. Imagine if the CAF/Government had put the kind of effort it has put in to address Madame Deschamps report into address General Leslie's?

Maybe, we need some high profile civilian to do a study. That seems to be the only way to get change. If it is internal, it gets ignored but if it is external the government seems willing to move mountains.


----------



## Mediman14 (5 Jan 2021)

TCM621 said:


> The last person to push change thru was Hillier and it actually ended up making things worse. He only managed to get half way thru before he retired and then they tried to revert back to the old way while still keeping the new commands. It slowed things down rather than making us more agile which was his intent.
> 
> Then Leslie did up his huge analysis and it contained a lot of good recommendations. Then he retired and everyone ignored it. Imagine if the CAF/Government had put the kind of effort it has put in to address Madame Deschamps report into address General Leslie's?
> 
> Maybe, we need some high profile civilian to do a study. That seems to be the only way to get change. If it is internal, it gets ignored but if it is external the government seems willing to move mountains.


You are so right with having an external review. But I am not sure about a profile civilian doing it as there might be some political pressure involved.  Someone of normal stature would probably be just as good if not better, but it is a big steep mountain to climb. 
  I feel bad for the next CDS , not to say that Vance was bad or anything, but the next CDS has to deal with a failing organization that many had neglected to deal with . Maybe the CDS will be told differently. In my career, it amazes me how CSM’s and CO’s did not see what was happening around them. I was in some briefings in the past, the CO’s was often fed lies and crap by other officers. Eventually those officers hit promoted. That was our future. Say what like, it happens.


----------



## Quirky (18 Feb 2021)

Rewaaz said:


> My father and my grandfather were both soldiers and I just want to continue our dynasty.



Lt. Dan is that you!?


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2021)

Quirky said:


> Lt. Dan is that you!?


😆 

‘Blink twice if you need help.’


----------



## MJP (18 Feb 2021)

lenaitch said:


> How  many bases have functioning fixed-wing airfields anymore?  Nearby civilian strips perhaps but you'd still have the 'last mile' problem.


Agreed buying more aircraft when we can barely man the ones we have now, to transport parts sounds like the throwaway COA one includes with real solutions.

I would say we need to try and solve the issue through existing infra, capital fleets and PYs first and then go begging for more.  The Amazon fulfillment center mentioned by FJAG is one variation that can be looked at. We could investigate the high demand part and re-apportion them properly across the country including if we had too, opening smaller more agile "depots" inside existing infra. I bet if we dived through the numbers only a small percentage of our NSNs are truly fast moving and represent a large portion of national orders.  

Geography kills us in any supply chain with only two strategic depots combined with the fact we don't buy a "mountain of parts" anymore. With limited parts often the default setting by the LCMM/SM is 1Z release which means they need to get involved manually in the ordering process. This means any order whether we automate it though max/mins, demand to fulfill a work order or order in the system manually needs manual intervention. Some LCMMs/SM are great but most fall below great and struggle to understand how the system* works and therefore gatekeep parts or are not timely in releasing parts. This often means that L4 & L3 staffs have engage through other means to get parts release and any time spent doing that is time that can't be utilized elsewhere (opportunity cost).


----------



## dapaterson (18 Feb 2021)

Amazon makes money by squeezing money out of labour.  If you're willing for the CAF to take 30-50% pay cuts, plus loss of most benefits, there's an opportunity to mimic their model.


----------



## MJP (18 Feb 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Amazon makes money by squeezing money out of labour.  If you're willing for the CAF to take 30-50% pay cuts, plus loss of most benefits, there's an opportunity to mimic their model.


I like it....oh wait wrong thread but if this the r/canadianforces this would fuel SCS memes for days

I was more musing on their ability to fill pre-position high demand items in certain areas less on their ability to squeeze the labour market.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Feb 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Amazon makes money by squeezing money out of labour.  If you're willing for the CAF to take 30-50% pay cuts, plus loss of most benefits, there's an opportunity to mimic their model.



Just to keep the thread derail going....

I know we need everyone who works in a CAF warehouse setting to make $70-80 k per annum because all of it is so... so... mysterious, but FWIW here's a description of Amazon's approach to chaos management which, apparently, is their secret weapon. And this approach, of course, would clearly make your average RQ's head explode  


AMAZON
This company built one of the world’s most efficient warehouses by embracing chaos

Through its Prime membership, it has promised tens of millions of customers free two-day shipping on more than 100 million products, and, last year, it shipped 5 billion items to them. “That was the major innovation,” says Daniel Theobald, who cofounded a warehouse robotics company called Vecna in 1998 and counts major retailers and logistics companies as clients. “As soon as people realized, you can order something and get it tomorrow, that turned the industry upside down.”

The core of this disruptive efficiency, though, is not Amazon’s automated shelf-moving warehouse robots, which is the innovation that gets the most attention. And it isn’t, on its surface, something that you would associate with a well-oiled machine. It’s not even a breakthrough technology. In fact, some version of it was already in place when Alperson worked in Amazon’s early warehouses.

*What makes Amazon’s warehouses work is the way they organize inventory: with complete randomness.*









						Amazon built one of the world's most efficient warehouses by embracing chaos
					

Amazon organizes the inventory in its warehouses using one simple rule: wherever there's space.




					classic.qz.com


----------



## Furniture (19 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Just to keep the thread derail going....
> 
> I know we need everyone who works in a CAF warehouse setting to make $70-80 k per annum because all of it is so... so... mysterious, but FWIW here's a description of Amazon's approach to chaos management which, apparently, is their secret weapon. And this approach, of course, would clearly make your average RQ's head explode
> 
> ...


In what word does a non-spec Cpl working in a warehouse make $70K... As a WO pi1 I make under $80K. Perhaps the savings could be had by having people do realistic cost estimates... lol


----------



## FJAG (19 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Just to keep the thread derail going....
> 
> I know we need everyone who works in a CAF warehouse setting to make $70-80 k per annum because all of it is so... so... mysterious, but FWIW here's a description of Amazon's approach to chaos management which, apparently, is their secret weapon. And this approach, of course, would clearly make your average RQ's head explode


I'll echo that. The fact that over one half of Canada's military budget goes to personnel costs (the vast majority full-timers) many of whom are doing jobs that on equivalent civvy street would draw half the wage is why we can't buy nice things like GBAD etc (and before all the flack is thrown my way, yes I know that there are many specialized skills and high risk jobs out there but military pay is based on civil service pay + and the civil service is greatly overpaid to start with)

Adding to the Amazon example, if you ever want to see organized chaos in action and you happen to be in the Netherlands, go visit the daily flower auction in Aalsmeer just south of Amsterdam near Schiphol airport. Every morning the 1,000,000 sq metre facility receives in 20,000,000 flowers from producers from all over the world, run them through an auction, settles the accounts in the five banks on site (probably more now) and by early afternoon has them on trucks, trains and airplanes going all over the world. The picture below shows about 1/4 of the active floor space. It's a combination of very high tech and a lot of analog handling by workers who need to assemble and shuffle lots from producers to the right buyers at a frantic pace.







🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Feb 2021)

Honestly the lack of automation at the depot level astounds me, really places like 7CFSD should be running like a Amazon warehouse, heavy automation, each NSN have a bar code, stored on shelves, picked, manually verified, packed and shipped. While robots and increased electronics I think is bad on the front lines, there is no good reason our 4th line depots and bases are not more automated for efficiency.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

Furniture said:


> In what word does a non-spec Cpl working in a warehouse make $70K... As a WO pi1 I make under $80K. Perhaps the savings could be had by having people do realistic cost estimates... lol


WO base salary, excluding allowances, is $77K. Cpl base salary is $60K and $64K at PI 4.  With allowances, it is not unconceivable for a Cpl working in a warehouse to make around $70K...


----------



## Furniture (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> WO base salary, excluding allowances, is $77K. Cpl base salary is $60K and $64K at PI 4.  With allowances, it is not unconceivable for a Cpl working in a warehouse to make around $70K...


What I was pointing out is that the $70-80K figure is pretty far out of step with base pay. Apart from a few bases most CAF personnel are not making much in allowances, particularly those posted base side in a warehouse. 



FJAG said:


> I'll echo that. The fact that over one half of Canada's military budget goes to personnel costs (the vast majority full-timers) many of whom are doing jobs that on equivalent civvy street would draw half the wage is why we can't buy nice things like GBAD etc (and before all the flack is thrown my way, yes I know that there are many specialized skills and high risk jobs out there but military pay is based on civil service pay + and the civil service is greatly overpaid to start with)
> 🍻


Could you specifically list the trades, and positions that are paid twice what they are worth?

I see this repeated by some on this forum, but never see specifics of which trades, and which positions are so significantly overpaid.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

Furniture said:


> What I was pointing out is that the $70-80K figure is pretty far out of step with base pay. Apart from a few bases most CAF personnel are not making much in allowances, particularly those posted base side in a warehouse.
> 
> 
> Could you specifically list the trades, and positions that are paid twice what they are worth?
> ...



I'm pretty sure they are talking about me and my ilk.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

What people forget is that pay isn't tied to your job its tied to your rank.  Allowances for qualifications and environment are remuneration for ones specific task.  

If you want to cut the WO Sgt Sup Tech pay by 50%, your going to have to do that to the WO rank, not to a singular trade.  

And I mean really with how well our logistics is going I can see no reason why cutting it off at the knees at this point wouldn't make perfect sense.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Feb 2021)

Furniture said:


> In what word does a non-spec Cpl working in a warehouse make $70K... As a WO pi1 I make under $80K. Perhaps the savings could be had by having people do realistic cost estimates... lol


Cpl non spec basic is $60k.  Add PLD in Edmonton.  Voila.  $70k per year Cpl.


----------



## MJP (19 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Honestly the lack of automation at the depot level astounds me, really places like 7CFSD should be running like a Amazon warehouse, heavy automation, each NSN have a bar code, stored on shelves, picked, manually verified, packed and shipped. While robots and increased electronics I think is bad on the front lines, there is no good reason our 4th line depots and bases are not more automated for efficiency.


How exactly are the depots set up? An how they do fulfill demands on daily basis? Now I know a little on how they work (not everything but that will change soon) and I agree there are likely many ways to make aspects more efficient but I contend that like most of your broad brush posts you are lacking in fidelity on how things actually are done but interested to see how you think they operate

BTW Depots are 3rd line not 4th which is generally considered industry when you talk about the greater supply chain. 



dapaterson said:


> Cpl non spec basic is $60k.  Add PLD in Edmonton.  Voila.  $70k per year Cpl.


Add in LDA if they are working a 2nd line warehouse and boom a $75-80K a year Cpl in Edmonton. In risk of derailing the thread further it really *disincentivizes moving folks as they resist losing that level of pay.  Hell I made more as a mid level Capt getting LDA than I do as a Maj (until incentive 2 or 3).  *


----------



## FSTO (19 Feb 2021)

MJP said:


> How exactly are the depots set up? An how they do fulfill demands on daily basis? Now I know a little on how they work (not everything but that will change soon) and I agree there are likely many ways to make aspects more efficient but I contend that like most of your broad brush posts you are lacking in fidelity on how things actually are done but interested to see how you think they operate
> 
> BTW Depots are 3rd line not 4th which is generally considered industry when you talk about the greater supply chain.
> 
> ...


A LT getting sea pay and Victoria PLD takes quite a hit when promoted to LCDR and posted to Ottawa.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Feb 2021)

I visited the Supply Depot in Montreal last year. One thing that folks on the outside who say "just do what Amazan/Walmart do" don't realize is that those supply chains work in one direction. Our supply chain has to receive items back. Those industry supply chains work on money - ownership of the assets changes as the money changes hands. When you buy a hockey helmet for your kid its yours forever. Not so with our supply chains. The Queen buys helmets for troops and issues them, but will take them back and give them to someone else.  Anyhoo I am out of my depth. 

Our most disastrous reorganization occurred when an outsider tried to solve the problem of personnel costs. Magic wands work in Harry Potter. Not so much in the real world.


----------



## FJAG (19 Feb 2021)

Furniture said:


> What I was pointing out is that the $70-80K figure is pretty far out of step with base pay. Apart from a few bases most CAF personnel are not making much in allowances, particularly those posted base side in a warehouse.
> 
> 
> Could you specifically list the trades, and positions that are paid twice what they are worth?
> ...



I never said they get paid twice what they are worth. I'm not prepared to evaluate a job group's value to society in general. I said that for many the pay is twice what would be paid for on civvy street.

I think much of what we have to deal with is the classification of jobs themselves. Take for example the warehousing field that we're talking about. An average supply technician worker-bee in the CF would be a corporal/mcpl who earns in the area of $5,088 to $5,516 per month (I'm assuming that sup tech isn't a specialist trade which would earn more). Consider as well that the job comes with a fairly generous benefits and pension package. On the other hand on civvy street a "warehouse worker" makes between $2,478 to $3,094 per month and a "supply technician" makes between $3,498 to $5,588 per month. What's interesting to note is that "supply technician" jobs are all in government employment while "warehouse worker" aren't. That said the military pay for a sup tech exceeds even that of a civilian one in that the range is much narrower and towards the upper end. Again,  factor in the benefit programs of government workers especially the pension plans.

Whenever you look to salaries for "blue collar workers" across the country, you'll find that the salary ranges are below those of the average worker-bee salary of the CAF on the job floor. That's compounded by the fact that many of our lower level snr NCO roles are also included in the floor level management salaries that come within the civilian job range (let's face it, civvies do low level management different than the CAF - you'd be hard pressed to find a CWO position on civvy street without trying to shoehorn it into some executive level job or other). Once you do rise into more senior management jobs (both NCO and officer) things fluctuate wildly. Government lawyers for example are moderately placed while civilian lawyers earn anywhere from significantly lower starvation wages to obscenely higher wages as do most mid to high placed executives.

Admittedly the example isn't exactly twice, but this is an internet web site where some hyperbole is not only allowed but encouraged.

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> I never said they get paid twice what they are worth. I'm not prepared to evaluate a job group's value to society in general. I said that for many the pay is twice what would be paid for on civvy street.
> 
> I think much of what we have to deal with is the classification of jobs themselves. Take for example the warehousing field that we're talking about. An average supply technician worker-bee in the CF would be a corporal/mcpl who earns in the area of $5,088 to $5,516 per month (I'm assuming that sup tech isn't a specialist trade which would earn more). Consider as well that the job comes with a fairly generous benefits and pension package. On the other hand on civvy street a "warehouse worker" makes between $2,478 to $3,094 per month and a "supply technician" makes between $3,498 to $5,588 per month. What's interesting to note is that "supply technician" jobs are all in government employment while "warehouse worker" aren't. That said the military pay for a sup tech exceeds even that of a civilian one in that the range is much narrower and towards the upper end. Again,  factor in the benefit programs of government workers especially the pension plans.
> 
> ...



So what do you propose ?  If our Sup Techs (Material Management Techs) are over paid, what is your solution ?  What about other trades ?

I will admit I am defensive about this because I see the massive impact my trade has every day; and I see and have to clean up the mess people who think they know what their are doing (Officers and Engineers I am looking at you) create.  We just had a report that espoused how bad of shape our Supply Chain was in and here people talking about Sup Techs being overpaid.  Its obvious we have neglected our Supply Chain divesting from it is not an option at this point.

FYI We aren't Supply Techs anymore our trade name changed too Material Management Tech.

From the CAF recruiting site:

The primary responsibilities of Material Management Technicians are to:


Manage the purchasing, warehousing, shipping, receiving, stock control and disposal of obsolete stock and equipment
Receive, handle and prepare items for shipment
Operate military vehicles weighing up to 10 tonnes and materials-handling equipment such as forklifts
Process invoices and prepare shipping documents
Order material from internal and external sources and purchase supplies
Deliver supplies and provide services to operational units
Perform recordkeeping, stocktaking and inventory control
Maintain accounting and financial records
Process and coordinate repair and disposal functions
FYI Those are all singular jobs on civy street.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> So what do you propose ?  If our Sup Techs (Material Management Techs) are over paid, what is your solution ?  What about other trades ?
> 
> I will admit I am defensive about this because I see the massive impact my trade has every day; and I see and have to clean up the mess people who think they know what their are doing (Officers and Engineers I am looking at you) create.  We just had a report that espoused how bad of shape our Supply Chain was in and here people talking about Sup Techs being overpaid.  Its obvious we have neglected our Supply Chain divesting from it is not an option at this point.
> 
> ...


I'd argue we need more MMT's, reports have shown our supply system is a mess, if we want to increase our holdings and increase turn around time it means more depots, and more techs staffing them.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I'd argue we need more MMT's, reports have shown our supply system is a mess, if we want to increase our holdings and increase turn around time it means more depots, and more techs staffing them.


Is more people the answer or developing efficiencies in our processes a better way to tackle the issue?


----------



## YZT580 (19 Feb 2021)

and don't forget that once you sign on the line your material management position may easily be in Yellowknife, Croatia, or Alert.  In civilian life you work where you wish and frankly, that could be worth a lot.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Is more people the answer or developing efficiencies in our processes a better way to tackle the issue?


Honestly probably a mix of both, supply chain management is one area perhaps bringing in private industry to offer advice may benefit us.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

YZT580 said:


> and don't forget that once you sign on the line your material management position may easily be in Yellowknife, Croatia, or Alert.  In civilian life you work where you wish and frankly, that could be worth a lot.


If you go to Yellowknife, you'll get an extra $1,476 a month (or $17,700 a year ) to account for being isolated.  When you deploy overseas, you get your salary tax free.  Also, our salary includes provisions for the nature of service. Not sure that's a valid concern...


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Is more people the answer or developing efficiencies in our processes a better way to tackle the issue?



I've said it before and I will say it again.  Get rid of off the street LogOs.  Stop having them become a "jack of all trades and master of none" and have strict discipline officers as in Supply Chain Management officers and solely commission from the ranks.  

Put some teeth in our policies.  Right now our polices are made of a wet paper lunch bag.  Hold those accountable who abuse the CFSS.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Honestly probably a mix of both, supply chain management is one area perhaps bringing in private industry to offer advice may benefit us.



I disagree as that's the reason we are in the state we are now.  Civilian Supply Chains exist to increase profit.  We cant do that.  We need mass amounts of stores in the right places at all times collecting dust until required.


----------



## YZT580 (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> If you go to Yellowknife, you'll get an extra $1,476 a month (or $17,700 a year ) to account for being isolated.  When you deploy overseas, you get your salary tax free.  Also, our salary includes provisions for the nature of service. Not sure that's a valid concern...


perhaps not if you are single but it is certainly a factor: particularly as one gets a little older or if your spouse has career aspirations as well.  It isn't the work that you are rewarding them for so much as providing compensation for one's off-time.  It is impossible to put a dollar value on quality of life, tax-free or 17,700 per year simply acknowledges the sacrifice (in some ways) that it being made.  Another thing, a fork lift driver may only get 20 per hour but he also gets overtime, a guaranteed 40 hour or less work week, statutory holidays off etc.  My neighbour drives forklift at a local factory.  His base pay is about 35,000 per year but his annual take home approaches 70 and all he does is drive forklift.  No other responsibilities.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I disagree as that's the reason we are in the state we are now.  Civilian Supply Chains exist to increase profit.  We cant do that.  We need mass amounts of stores in the right places at all times collecting dust until required.


Perhaps but it should not take a month to get a part to fix an aircraft.  There are lessons that we could learn from an efficiency point of view.  We don't exist to make profit but the supply chain should be effective and efficient, both characteristics that are required to run a profitable supply chain.  The fact that consumable parts for Tutors (which are only based in Moose Jaw) are located in Montreal is a sign that our supply system is dysfunctional.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

YZT580 said:


> perhaps not if you are single but it is certainly a factor: particularly as one gets a little older or if your spouse has career aspirations as well.  It isn't the work that you are rewarding them for so much as providing compensation for one's off-time.  It is impossible to put a dollar value on quality of life, tax-free or 17,700 per year simply acknowledges the sacrifice (in some ways) that it being made.  Another thing, a fork lift driver may only get 20 per hour but he also gets overtime, a guaranteed 40 hour or less work week, statutory holidays off etc.  My neighbour drives forklift at a local factory.  His base pay is about 35,000 per year but his annual take home approaches 70 and all he does is drive forklift.  No other responsibilities.


How much overtime does that forklift driver do?  I would argue that most of the CAF is on the winning side when considering overtime...


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I disagree as that's the reason we are in the state we are now.  Civilian Supply Chains exist to increase profit.  We cant do that.  We need mass amounts of stores in the right places at all times collecting dust until required.


True but they make profit by delivering goods on time and on budget. Something we couldn't learn about, I'm not saying everything private industry does can work for us, but I am sure there could be some lessons learned.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps but it should not take a month to get a part to fix an aircraft.  There are lessons that we could learn from an efficiency point of view.  We don't exist to make profit but the supply chain should be effective and efficient, both characteristics that are required to run a profitable supply chain.  The fact that consumable parts for Tutors (which are only based in Moose Jaw) are located in Montreal is a sign that our supply system is dysfunctional.



I completely agree

Like I said:

"We need *mass amounts of stores in the right places* at all times collecting dust until required"

Having said that, that's not a sign the CFSS is dysfunctional that's a sign the LCMMs and SMs don't know what they are doing, this is the engineers and officers part.   LCMMs and SMs procure parts and insert them into the CFSS and decide how much goes where.  The CFSS manages the parts after that.  LCMMs aren't Sup Techs, they are Technicians and Engineers USUALLY familiar with the NSNs they are supporting.  SMs can be Sup Techs but are generally civilian these days.


----------



## YZT580 (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> How much overtime does that forklift driver do?  I would argue that most of the CAF is on the winning side when considering overtime...


every evening shift after 6 is considered OT and he works two shifts equally so there is a lot of OT contained in the basic work week and you are ignoring the more important aspect of compensation for being transportable.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> True but they make profit by delivering goods on time and on budget. Something we couldn't learn about, I'm not saying everything private industry does can work for us, but I am sure there could be some lessons learned.



I think all we need to do is allocate and locate our parts correctly and ensure we continually fill stocks as they deplete.  Its just that simple.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

YZT580 said:


> every evening shift after 6 is considered OT and he works two shifts equally so there is a lot of OT contained in the basic work week and you are ignoring the more important aspect of compensation for being transportable.


Except that those issues are not exclusive to the Materiel Management Tech trade, this is across the CAF.  From a base salary perspective, I think many trades within the CAF are overpaid while some are underpaid.  Our pay structure is apparently designed to compete with people doing a lot of overtime when, in fact, most CAF members don't.  I'd be curious to see how many MMTs stay past 6PM on a regular basis.  I bet you it is not a majority.

Having OT in the CAF would most likely improve QoL significantly.

Would you agree with a lower base salary but with overtime compensation?


----------



## YZT580 (19 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I completely agree
> 
> Like I said:
> 
> ...


We used to know better but that was before they trying to justify keeping Montreal open and the jobs in Quebec.  Central storage works great if you have a dedicated delivery service attached to it but we got rid of the cosmos decades ago and along with them the scheduled flights between bases.  Amazon works only because they have the delivery service to go with the warehousing.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Except that those issues are not exclusive to the Materiel Management Tech trade, this is across the CAF.  From a base salary perspective, I think many trades within the CAF are overpaid while some are underpaid.  Our pay structure is apparently designed to compete with people doing a lot of overtime when, in fact, most CAF members don't.  I'd be curious to see how many MMTs stay past 6PM on a regular basis.  I bet you it is not a majority.
> 
> Having OT in the CAF would most likely improve QoL significantly.
> 
> Would you agree with a lower base salary but with overtime compensation?



Wait wait wait, so now if a CAF member isn't working overtime they aren't valuable enough for the current salary levels ?  What's wrong with someone getting their tasks done in the 8hr work day ? 

You are showing the exact reasons our pay is tied to rank and not hours.  Its a dogs breakfast if you try to go otherwise.  Lets also remember we are paid 24/7/365. Hence the reason I can call in the CFB Halifax, Blog Traffic section on a Sat at noon to move parts.  How would you do over time for ships ?  I was 141 days onboard FRE in 2020 with no time off.  Imagine that OT bill.

Id rather "time in lieu" as the overtime the CAF would owe me would be taxed out the wazoo.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

YZT580 said:


> We used to know better but that was before they trying to justify keeping Montreal open and the jobs in Quebec.  Central storage works great if you have a dedicated delivery service attached to it but we got rid of the cosmos decades ago and along with them the scheduled flights between bases.  Amazon works only because they have the delivery service to go with the warehousing.



Preach brother!


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Wait wait wait, so now if a CAF member isn't working overtime they aren't valuable enough for the current salary levels ?  What's wrong with someone getting their tasks done in the 8hr work day ?
> 
> You are showing the exact reasons our pay is tied to rank and not hours.  Its a dogs breakfast if you try to go otherwise.  Lets also remember we are paid 24/7/365. Hence the reason I can call in the CFB Halifax, Blog Traffic section on a Sat at noon to move parts.  How would you do over time for ships ?  I was 141 days onboard FRE in 2020 with no time off.  Imagine that OT bill.
> 
> Id rather "time in lieu" as the overtime the CAF would owe me would be taxed out the wazoo.


So, you don’t agree that someone working 60 hours a week is more valuable than someone working 30 or 40 hours???  If you get re-called on a Saturday afternoon to move parts, you get overtime.  What’s the issue with this concept?

141 days at sea, but you had time off it was just on a ship. You are compensated for being on a ship through your SDA and for being deployed through a tax-free allowance. Somehow, the CCG is able to manage this...


----------



## TCM621 (19 Feb 2021)

I suggest anyone who is wondering why we have shortages and retention issues read this Reddit thread. It sums up the feelings in the CAF rather well. Senior lleadership is completely missing the boat


Halifax Tar said:


> Wait wait wait, so now if a CAF member isn't working overtime they aren't valuable enough for the current salary levels ?  What's wrong with someone getting their tasks done in the 8hr work day ?
> 
> You are showing the exact reasons our pay is tied to rank and not hours.  Its a dogs breakfast if you try to go otherwise.  Lets also remember we are paid 24/7/365. Hence the reason I can call in the CFB Halifax, Blog Traffic section on a Sat at noon to move parts.  How would you do over time for ships ?  I was 141 days onboard FRE in 2020 with no time off.  Imagine that OT bill.
> 
> Id rather "time in lieu" as the overtime the CAF would owe me would be taxed out the wazoo.


IIRC the expected "overtime" above and beyond a regular work schedule is priced into our pay at a rate of about 6%. Maybe a FinO can chime in and let me know if I am talking out my butt again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Feb 2021)

OK, I've been retired for a looooong time, but, decades ago, I had a job that let me see, close up and in detail, how the "life cycle materiel management" system worked and didn't work. At the risk of grossly oversimplifying, the biggest enemy the materiel management system faced was interference by combat-branch admirals and generals who constantly wanted to 'reform' the materiel management system so that they could free up money for their own pet projects. They knew that e.g. keeping the bins full was an essential *operational *function but thy didn't care; a shiny new this or a bit more of that was always more important. 🤬


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, you don’t agree that someone working 60 hours a week is more valuable than someone working 30 or 40 hours???  If you get re-called on a Saturday afternoon to move parts, you get overtime.  What’s the issue with this concept?
> 
> 141 days at sea, but you had time off it was just on a ship. You are compensated for being on a ship through your SDA and for being deployed through a tax-free allowance. Somehow, the CCG is able to manage this...



No I don't.  I have worked for people who had to work overtime because they cant manage their time.  And then they wondered I wasn't working over time.  Because I used my 8 hours productively.   Why are people working that much over time ?  Are they doing more than one job ?  Are they over tasked and under staffed ?  Since when did over time become the pillar of importance ? 

I just completed my 6th deployment and 5th ship, where we were confined to ship for 141 days and lets throw in a helo crash for good measure too.  Is not ok I do a day job for a bit ?  Or should I continue to burn candle at both ends.  Lets also not forget taking that ship out of refit and ramping it up for the Covid Cruise. 

The CCG doesn't sail crews for 6 moths straight they are on a schedule.  If SDA and Tax free are the compensation and that's good enough we shouldn't have a problem getting people to sail and deploy.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

The issue of productivity is present in every sector (public or private).  It is a leadership issue.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> The issue of productivity is present in every sector (public or private).  It is a leadership issue.


Due to the nature of how we operate especially in remote locations, I would argue work life balance, and quality of life also factor in as well. Happy troops tend to work harder, and have less issues in the work place.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Due to the nature of how we operate especially in remote locations, I would argue work life balance, and quality of life also factor in as well. Happy troops tend to work harder, and have less issues in the work place.


Agreed.  And it comes down to leadership (at all levels).


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> The issue of productivity is present in every sector (public or private).  It is a leadership issue.


So we can agree overtime is no measure of productivity and as such is not a measure of where ones pay level should be if we are going to tie pay to productivity vice rank.


----------



## Weinie (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps but it should not take a month to get a part to fix an aircraft.  There are lessons that we could learn from an efficiency point of view.  We don't exist to make profit but the supply chain should be effective and efficient, both characteristics that are required to run a profitable supply chain.  The fact that consumable parts for Tutors (which are only based in Moose Jaw) are located in Montreal is a sign that our supply system is dysfunctional.


So why hasn't the Moose Jaw Log O submitted a UCR and requested all Tutor parts be re-located to Sqn stores at Moose Jaw?


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

Oh it has been asked at higher levels...


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> So we can agree overtime is no measure of productivity and as such is not a measure of where ones pay level should be if we are going to tie pay to productivity vice rank.


No. Productivity should be fostered by leadership. And we need more teeth to kick deadweight out.  

Overtime is a great way to compensate for work beyond normal expectation. Having a single pay structure, regardless of how much people work is flawed.  People, like you, who are indeed productive, have no incentive, beyond a sense of duty, to do more.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> No. Productivity should be fostered by leadership. And we need more teeth to kick deadweight out.
> 
> Overtime is a great way to compensate for work beyond normal expectation. Having a single pay structure, regardless of how much people work is flawed.  People, like you, who are indeed productive, have no incentive, beyond a sense of duty, to do more.



What do you do when no one wants the overtime ?


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> What do you do when no one wants the overtime ?


You force them, the same way we do now.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Feb 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> You force them, the same way we do now.



Why not just fore go the complications of that  and just pay a descent salary ?


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Feb 2021)

So, just keep throwing money out the window under the auspice that “we pay good” is a acceptable proposition?

Of course, something like this will likely not be implemented anytime soon.  But there are solutions to our inefficiencies in our pay structures.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Feb 2021)

The CAF would lose on OT, that is just a fact as you pay for every hour they aren't at home. 

Other things that factor into CAF pay which isn't a factor for a civilian is the fact that Supply Techs can be shot at and have to shoot at the enemy. Being ordered to do things or go to jail. Can't refuse when work get dangerous or ridiculous. Can't tell your boss he is a POS without potentially doing jail time. Can't quit when you have had enough.


----------



## MJP (19 Feb 2021)

Red_Five said:


> I visited the Supply Depot in Montreal last year. One thing that folks on the outside who say "just do what Amazan/Walmart do" don't realize is that those supply chains work in one direction. Our supply chain has to receive items back. Those industry supply chains work on money - ownership of the assets changes as the money changes hands. When you buy a hockey helmet for your kid its yours forever. Not so with our supply chains. The Queen buys helmets for troops and issues them, but will take them back and give them to someone else.  Anyhoo I am out of my depth.


Bingo, we are very much a closed loop supply chain which means much of what we push out comes back in some way shape or form to some level of the supply chain for repair, refurb, demil or disposal. TBF most organizations have a return aspect of their supply chain but when your world revolves around parts it is vital. John Deere, Catapiller, Mack are all examples of companies that have strong returns aspects to their supply chain.

While we do hold lots of consumable stock most of our parts for platforms is repairable and returning those parts for repair or refurbishment is crucial to maintaining future stocks. Failure to execute this activity can have strategic effects especially for low density parts. One anedoctal example from early in my career is I took over a repair and disposal platoon that had had simply failed to do their job for several years. In cleaning up the mess we found we held 30 - 40% of all the transmissions for the HLVW, 90% of which were not properly on the system of record so there was no visibility of them in the supply chain. Just returning them to the system properly reinvigorated the fleet and likely saved money as they (EMT) no longer at to do a major purchase of additional assemblies which was crucial as the fleet was nearing the end of life anyway.


SupersonicMax said:


> Is more people the answer or developing efficiencies in our processes a better way to tackle the issue?


I would argue that processes need to be refined before we go mewling for more PYs.  There is something to be said on the PY front though as 3rd line lost roughly 1000 people between 1996 when they close CFSD Moncton and Toronto (900 PYs) and 2005 with the implementation of Material Acquisition Support Optimization Project (_MASOP_).  Roughly 600 folks mostly civilian run 3rd line for the CAF, however many more work on the policy and equipment management side of the house controlled by DND proper.


Halifax Tar said:


> I've said it before and I will say it again.  Get rid of off the street LogOs.  Stop having them become a "jack of all trades and master of none" and have strict discipline officers as in Supply Chain Management officers and solely commission from the ranks.
> 
> Put some teeth in our policies.  Right now our polices are made of a wet paper lunch bag.  Hold those accountable who abuse the CFSS.


Dude I respect ya but that is a bunk suggestion with no backing in anything substantive and I come from the ranks(although not MM Tech).  Our 3rd line is mostly civilian and the back bone of 1st to 2nd line is SNCOs not officers and in my opinion they are just as much the problem as bad officers. As technical SMEs, I find them as a institution wholly lacking. Do not get me wrong there are a great many that are excellent, but many are dead weight and couldn't tell you the difference between and _S or _P MRP and or where a PReq/PO is stuck in the system.  Part of it is breath and scale of the trade as they flit between being both lower level procurement and pure material management folks. 

To touch on your policy aspect one thing many folks don't realize is that ADMMat owns policy and they belong to DND not the CAF. They are part of the whole supply chain but supply chain management is not our strength as that is a total understanding and cultivation of relationships across an entire supply chain.

Just so it is clear what I mean supply chain management is not the same as logistics.

Logistics = Logistics is the process of strategically managing the procurement, movement and storage of materials, parts and finished inventory (and the related information flows) through the organisation and its marketing channels in such a way that current and future profitability are maximised through the cost-effective fulfilment of orders

Supply Chain Management = A network of connected and interdependent organisations mutually and co-operatively working together to control, manage and improve the flow of materials and information from suppliers to end users

That said I am curious what policies you think are weak? I have my own thoughts but curious what you see as an issue.




SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps but it should not take a month to get a part to fix an aircraft.  There are lessons that we could learn from an efficiency point of view.  We don't exist to make profit but the* supply chain should be effective and efficient, both characteristics that are required to run a profitable supply chain*.  The fact that consumable parts for Tutors (which are only based in Moose Jaw) are located in Montreal is a sign that our supply system is dysfunctional.



Agreed


Weinie said:


> So why hasn't the Moose Jaw Log O submitted a UCR and requested all Tutor parts be re-located to Sqn stores at Moose Jaw?


UCRs are to fix problems with individual NSNs not to fix systemic distribution and vehicle off-road (VOR or whatever a broken plane is called in RCAF parlance) problems.


SupersonicMax said:


> Oh it has been asked at higher levels...



The CA has the same issue with much of their Engines and Major Assemblies (EMAS) for many fleets including almost all Leo II parts in Montreal despite 70% of the fleet being in Edmonton right beside a depot.  It took some high level command involvement to break the Supply Manager and Life-Cycle Materiel Managers reluctance to not have all their preciouses in one place. If anything it makes sense if not Moose Jaw then at least pre-positioned regionally in Edmonton for Tudor parts.


YZT580 said:


> We used to know better but that was before they trying to justify keeping Montreal open and the jobs in Quebec.  Central storage works great if you have a dedicated delivery service attached to it but we got rid of the cosmos decades ago and along with them the scheduled flights between bases.  Amazon works only because they have the delivery service to go with the warehousing.



We have dedicated delivery in the form of the National Freight Run, run by CMSG and executed by a number of partners within the CAF.  Shipping by planes is expensive and they really can't carry the quantity that rail or trucks can at a fraction of the cost.  Several posters have mused about more planes to move stock around and that argument might be valid for expeditionary ops but domestically an optimized NFR fits our needs fine and when it is needed commercial is there to back stop.


* edited for very shitty wording


----------



## GR66 (19 Feb 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> The CAF would lose on OT, that is just a fact as you pay for every hour they aren't at home.
> 
> Other things that factor into CAF pay which isn't a factor for a civilian is the fact that Supply Techs can be shot at and have to shoot at the enemy. Being ordered to do things or go to jail. Can't refuse when work get dangerous or ridiculous. Can't tell your boss he is a POS without potentially doing jail time. Can't quit when you have had enough.


Do all supply positions need to be filled by uniformed personnel?  For a position that can't ever been deployed in case of war like a warehouse in Canada are you paying a premium filling the position with a service member with unlimited liability?


----------



## MJP (19 Feb 2021)

GR66 said:


> Do all supply positions need to be filled by uniformed personnel?  For a position that can't ever been deployed in case of war like a warehouse in Canada are you paying a premium filling the position with a service member with unlimited liability?


3rd line (so CMSG)  is 75% civilian already, with the only place that has more mil than civ within the formation being CFAD Angus likely due to the close proximity of the school. There is likely more room at 2nd line for more civilian IMHO but that is a very CA centric thought as I do not kn RCAF/RCN employment patterns well


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Feb 2021)

GR66 said:


> Do all supply positions need to be filled by uniformed personnel?  For a position that can't ever been deployed in case of war like a warehouse in Canada are you paying a premium filling the position with a service member with unlimited liability?


That is a fair question, much of the maintenance and supply side of the CAF can be handled by civilians. But there is inherent advantages to having things inhouse as well. 

The more you have inhouse the more skillsets your building in your troops which means the more capability they have when push comes to shove. You also aren't dealing with unions and other difficulties that can come from dealing with civilians. 

Another advantage is when things actually get serious and people start dying (I know we don't think that way because we haven't had it happen for a long time) you have some redundancy. This is a serious flaw in most of the CAF because we only think of bare minimums but in a real war those bare minimums quickly become insufficient. If there is no one else to step up to the plate there is a serious learning curve which will cost many more lives. 

Penny pinching in the wrong areas can cost lives if not wars. The fact that we lack parts and other critical equipment in peacetime means if we actually start losing equipment in a war we will quickly be destroyed. We need warehouses filled to the brim with equipment, warstock that can be called upon in the event of serious issues, spare parts for all the equipment we are using and intend to use, troops to man, issue and repair this equipment. This isn't cheap but we aren't a organization based on making money. We are a organization based on the controlled application of violence and as such should have some very different requirements than pretty much any other group.


----------



## Quirky (19 Feb 2021)

MJP said:


> If anything it makes sense if not Moose Jaw then at least pre-positioned regionally in Edmonton for Tudor parts



Tutor* periodics are still conducted in Trenton so a Montreal depot isn’t all that far fetched. The fleet isn’t a military operational necessity, no parts to fix a plane, one less for a formation. Oh well.

The one that does not make sense is the CF-18 depot in Edmonton, does cold lake really lack the space for a parts hub? Waiting on a part could have an affect on ops in that fleet.


----------



## YZT580 (19 Feb 2021)

MJP said:


> _We have dedicated delivery in the form of the National Freight Run, run by CMSG and executed by a number of partners within the CAF.  Shipping by planes is expensive and they really can't carry the quantity that rail or trucks can at a fraction of the cost.  Several posters have mused about more planes to move stock around and that argument might be valid for expeditionary ops but domestically an optimized NFR fits our needs fine and when it is needed commercial is there to back stop._


Nice thought but shipping time between Montreal and the majority of our bases is measured in days, not hours.  That is why the couriers all use a/c.  Heck, the last mail car was uncoupled in 1971 and the last mail as baggage was in the mid 80's plus shipping by rail requires handling everything at least twice and it still takes 4 days from Montreal to Vancouver and that is after getting your cargo included in an outbound container.  Central warehousing only works efficiently when the people working there are directly motivated.  Your priority of winter survival gear prior to a trip to Churchill isn't any more important to the clerk in the warehouse than that of the captain in Toronto who needs some A4 for his printer because he has a presentation to make.  

The report on logistics that came out recently was a devastating indictment.  50% of all shipping requests are late: many by months and years rather than just a few days so regardless, the current system is broke. 


MJP said:


> * edited for very shitty wording


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Nice thought but shipping time between Montreal and the majority of our bases is measured in days, not hours.  That is why the couriers all use a/c.  Heck, the last mail car was uncoupled in 1971 and the last mail as baggage was in the mid 80's plus shipping by rail requires handling everything at least twice and it still takes 4 days from Montreal to Vancouver and that is after getting your cargo included in an outbound container.  Central warehousing only works efficiently when the people working there are directly motivated.  Your priority of winter survival gear prior to a trip to Churchill isn't any more important to the clerk in the warehouse than that of the captain in Toronto who needs some A4 for his printer because he has a presentation to make.
> 
> The report on logistics that came out recently was a devastating indictment.  50% of all shipping requests are late: many by months and years rather than just a few days so regardless, the current system is broke.


While I live in reality not pie in the sky, so it is less a thought than actuality. What percentage of material ordered needs hours vs days? Of the material that comes out of the depot is how much is routine replen that has no real priority and therefore has no need to go by air?

I agree the OAG report for spring 2020 is damming as were every one of the reports for the last 30 years (go read the report on supplying the Afghan Campaign from 2008) so I certainly not defending status quo as the way forward, but air transport was never the solution despite your assertions to the contrary. 

As an aside instead of cherry picking and why not use the the direct quotes from the OAG report.  The actual statements from the report are:

_We found that 50% of all materiel requested during the period covered by our audit was received after the required date of delivery. Among the late deliveries,_

_50% were at least 15 days late_
_25% were at least 40 days late_
_3.28 Among the high-priority requests, we found that 60% arrived after the required delivery date. Of these,_


_50% were at least 6 days late_
_25% were at least 20 days late_

_We also found that at the time of our audit, National Defence had a backlog of about 162,000 requests that were more than 1 year late, stalled at some stage in the process._

Like any high level report there is always a degree of nuance to the numbers and underlying factors at play that are outside of the scope of the report. Regardless there are vast efficiencies we can make to our supply chain and to our overall supply chain management , not gatekeeping status quo but the solutions are better processes and efficiencies not more planes.



Canada. (2020). Reports of the Auditor General of Canada to Parliament of Canada: Report 3 Supplying the Canadian Armed Forces – National Defence. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_202007_03_e_43574.html#hd4a


----------



## YZT580 (20 Feb 2021)

Didn't see the need to quote the whole damn thing.  Seems the problem is getting the stuff out the door.  4 days on a truck doesn't account for a 30 day delay in delivery.


----------



## GR66 (20 Feb 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> That is a fair question, much of the maintenance and supply side of the CAF can be handled by civilians. But there is inherent advantages to having things inhouse as well.
> 
> The more you have inhouse the more skillsets your building in your troops which means the more capability they have when push comes to shove. You also aren't dealing with unions and other difficulties that can come from dealing with civilians.
> 
> ...


The problem I see with the idea of manning warehouses, etc. with uniformed staff so that you have extra people to replace casualties is that if we go to war that's the time that you can LEAST afford to draw your experienced logistics people from your warehouse system.  That's exactly the time that you'd need the warehouses to be their most efficient and pulling experienced uniformed staff away and replacing them with new replacements at that critical moment could be a huge problem.

The better way (as was noted above by FJAG) would be to have sufficient redundancy in the front line logistics units to maintain support to the combat units despite combat losses.  

Clearly this isn't a cheap option.  You need a larger rear area civilian workforce that can have the experience and to keep up the required level of supply during a conflict plus significant redundancy in your uniformed front line logistics units to cover casualties.  Not as sexy as tank regiments or HIMARS batteries, but not much point in having fancy equipment if you can't support and maintain it in the field in time of war.


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Didn't see the need to quote the whole damn thing.  Seems the problem is getting the stuff out the door.  4 days on a truck doesn't account for a 30 day delay in delivery.


Apologies thought you would want to have informed discussion about what was actually said.  Sorry for injecting reality.

So to placate your hobby horse and how do you propose the RCAF solve their pilot problem to man more Transport AC?

How many more planes do we need? What kind and where are they based? What additional infrastructure is required?

In terms of increased support trades who gives up PYs so we have more AVN/AVS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2021)

Tactical aviation transport could flown by Warrant Officers


----------



## FJAG (20 Feb 2021)

GR66 said:


> Clearly this isn't a cheap option.  You need a larger rear area civilian workforce that can have the experience and to keep up the required level of supply during a conflict plus significant redundancy in your uniformed front line logistics units to cover casualties.  Not as sexy as tank regiments or HIMARS batteries, but not much point in having fancy equipment if you can't support and maintain it in the field in time of war.



I think you make the key argument here. Too many people misunderstand the term "teeth to tail ratio" when discussing combat capability. Teeth do not work without an adequate tail. We need to distinguish between what elements of the tail are essential for warfighting and fully staff and support that element. On the other hand that element of the tail which is merely administrative overhead must be critically examined to ensure only the absolutely essential core is kept while the massive expense that it eats up is redistributed to more essential users.

There are two tail elements that I consider absolutely critical both in peace and war: supply and maintenance. Both have been heavily and justifiably criticized in various audits over the last few decades and both need improving. Better functioning training systems, depots and workshops are key to this and IMHO having Amazon-like supply depots with high technology computer systems but low-cost, low-skilled civilian workers which combine to create rapid turn around of orders is a valid option (outsource it to avoid civil service salaries and work habits if necessary). Our current systems are not up to snuff. Besides Amazon, car manufacturers and dealerships have developed fast systems to fulfil supply and repair part processing. Creating such a system from scratch isn't easy (even when one has a model, its not easy as was demonstrated by Target's failed foray into Canada which was entirely the result of their Canadian specific failed supply chain ordering system)

There are many parts of the CAF which need major overhauls and rebuilding from the ground up. That's never easy but at some point we need to admit that the current supply system, while it might continue to limp along, is no longer fit for purpose and we should never be afraid to look at successful systems on the civilian side for inspiration. We desperately need to curtail our administrative overhead and reinvest the capital in other things including a more capable supply and maintenance system.

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

MJP said:


> Dude I respect ya but that is a bunk suggestion with no backing in anything substantive and I come from the ranks(although not MM Tech). Our 3rd line is mostly civilian and the back bone of 1st to 2nd line is SNCOs not officers and in my opinion they are just as much the problem as bad officers. As technical SMEs, I find them as a institution wholly lacking. Do not get me wrong there are a great many that are excellent, but many are dead weight and couldn't tell you the difference between and _S or _P MRP and or where a PReq/PO is stuck in the system. Part of it is breath and scale of the trade as they flit between being both lower level procurement and pure material management folks.
> 
> To touch on your policy aspect one thing many folks don't realize is that ADMMat owns policy and they belong to DND not the CAF. They are part of the whole supply chain but supply chain management is not our strength as that is a total understanding and cultivation of relationships across an entire supply chain.
> 
> ...


Too often I have found my officers miss the nuance and practical application when expressing the concerns regarding Supply when briefing higher command.  I know the CA has dedicated SUPPLY Officers but we in the Navy are being done a disservice but trying to make our Officers only somewhat competent in all facets of the Log Branch. 

I am def not saying my trade doesn't have dead weight.  I think allot of that comes from our management of our people.  Like still insisting on this idea that people cant only be Navy or Army.  We need to stop this.  Meaning get rid of the purple.

Policies ?  How about having people held accountable for the stores they signed for ?  in 21 years doing this job I have seen one person held accountable for their lost clothing on an MLR.  I have never seen a SCA holder held responsible for their lost material on their SCA.  I am not sure if the Army does LCIs, but if people fail these, which happens all the time, these people should be facing career implication.  Instead we just pat people on the back and push bubbles on PERs over to the right, because material management really doesn't matter we will just buy more.



GR66 said:


> Do all supply positions need to be filled by uniformed personnel?  For a position that can't ever been deployed in case of war like a warehouse in Canada are you paying a premium filling the position with a service member with unlimited liability?



Yes they do.  We need to ensure our MMTs get experience in the different lines of supply to ensure they have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop.  As well these positions allow us create things like a sea to shore ration to try to give some QOL to our people.


----------



## GR66 (20 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Too often I have found my officers miss the nuance and practical application when expressing the concerns regarding Supply when briefing higher command.  I know the CA has dedicated SUPPLY Officers but we in the Navy are being done a disservice but trying to make our Officers only somewhat competent in all facets of the Log Branch.
> 
> I am def not saying my trade doesn't have dead weight.  I think allot of that comes from our management of our people.  Like still insisting on this idea that people cant only be Navy or Army.  We need to stop this.  Meaning get rid of the purple.
> 
> ...


I can certainly accept that the part in yellow is valid and assume the argument is likely equally true for most/all Navy trades.  Perhaps that's an argument for making some of these positions "Navy" as opposed to "Purple" as you'd be (hopefully) getting more people that are looking for some sea time by choosing the Navy specifically, or does being "Purple" give more opportunity to get postings were being in the field is the duration of a field exercise vs. a months long deployment?  I honestly don't know the answer to that and I guess if it was an easy question to answer navies around the world would have solved the problem already.

As for the two portions in green, don't they somewhat contradict each other?  The LogO's aren't specializing enough in supply so they're not competent, but the MMT's can't primarily focus on the portions of the supply chain that can ONLY be done by uniformed personnel because they need to "have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop"?.


----------



## FJAG (20 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Yes they do.  We need to ensure our MMTs get experience in the different lines of supply to ensure they have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop.  As well these positions allow us create things like a sea to shore ration to try to give some QOL to our people.



I agree that MMTs should have experience at the different level of supply but that doesn't mean they have to fill every position. If an Amazon-like warehousing depot is staffed by low cost and inexperienced worker-bees (or even robots) one still needs a certain number of managers/administrators from within the MMT trade to supervise the operation. That provides vital middle and upper management experience for the CoC. One doesn't need to have a uniformed MMT private or corporal doing routine and repetitive jobs pulling item A off shelf B and placing it into basket C then handing it to someone else who puts shipping label D onto it for two or three years to master his trade at the battalion or ship or squadron level. In a properly designed system you can do that type of job with low-cost, barely skilled labour or automation. Trained MMTs should be where they may need to deploy and where the breadth of their training is useful to the "teeth". Putting trained MMTs into jobs that challenge their skills rather than doing repetitive drone work would aid with improved job satisfaction within the trade.

🍻


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Feb 2021)

It's not really a contradiction, GR66.

When HT talks about learning the supply chain, he is talking of a supply tech learning all aspects of exactly that: the supply chain.

When he talks about the officers, he is talking about the fact that in the navy, our SeaLog officers are generalists, not specialists as in the Army/Air Force. They learn just enough of all the following and are simultaneously responsible for all of the following functions onboard a ship: Finance/accounting/budget, NPF, food services, transportation, supply management, records management (OK for that one they get help from the Cox'n staff), plus other assigned ancillary duties. On land, these are all performed by differently and specifically trained officers.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> I agree that MMTs should have experience at the different level of supply but that doesn't mean they have to fill every position. If an Amazon-like warehousing depot is staffed by low cost and inexperienced worker-bees (or even robots) one still needs a certain number of managers/administrators from within the MMT trade to supervise the operation. That provides vital middle and upper management experience for the CoC. One doesn't need to have a uniformed MMT private or corporal doing routine and repetitive jobs pulling item A off shelf B and placing it into basket C then handing it to someone else who puts shipping label D onto it for two or three years to master his trade at the battalion or ship or squadron level. In a properly designed system you can do that type of job with low-cost, barely skilled labour or automation. Trained MMTs should be where they may need to deploy and where the breadth of their training is useful to the "teeth". Putting trained MMTs into jobs that challenge their skills rather than doing repetitive drone work would aid with improved job satisfaction within the trade.
> 
> 🍻



Another reason the private sector uses robots etc, especially in the US, is an aging - and/or litigation prone - workforce gets injured more often resulting in claims against the company. It's also hard to find high quality entry level staff who will work for low wages.

So it's cheaper and more sustainable to invest heavily in AI for the physical work.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> I agree that MMTs should have experience at the different level of supply but that doesn't mean they have to fill every position. If an Amazon-like warehousing depot is staffed by low cost and inexperienced worker-bees (or even robots) one still needs a certain number of managers/administrators from within the MMT trade to supervise the operation. That provides vital middle and upper management experience for the CoC. One doesn't need to have a uniformed MMT private or corporal doing routine and repetitive jobs pulling item A off shelf B and placing it into basket C then handing it to someone else who puts shipping label D onto it for two or three years to master his trade at the battalion or ship or squadron level. In a properly designed system you can do that type of job with low-cost, barely skilled labour or automation. Trained MMTs should be where they may need to deploy and where the breadth of their training is useful to the "teeth". Putting trained MMTs into jobs that challenge their skills rather than doing repetitive drone work would aid with improved job satisfaction within the trade.
> 
> 🍻


They don't.  In fact in BLog in Halifax (Base Supply) Civilians (Public Service) heavily out weigh MMTs in leadership and worker bee positions. Civilians have very heavy foot print in 2nd and 3rd lines Supply orgs.  At this point what you espouse would essentially remove any military foot print from the 2nd line back.  You cannot manage something you have no technical or practical experience in, hence the reason we need to have Cpls and Ptes in the 2nd and 3rd lines to gain that experience and an appreciation for the full gambit of how our supply chain operates, or fails too.

Most MMTs wont get exposure beyond the 2nd line already as most of us bounce from 1st to 2nd for the majority of our career or a staff job like I am in now.




GR66 said:


> I can certainly accept that the part in yellow is valid and assume the argument is likely equally true for most/all Navy trades.  Perhaps that's an argument for making some of these positions "Navy" as opposed to "Purple" as you'd be (hopefully) getting more people that are looking for some sea time by choosing the Navy specifically, or does being "Purple" give more opportunity to get postings were being in the field is the duration of a field exercise vs. a months long deployment?  I honestly don't know the answer to that and I guess if it was an easy question to answer navies around the world would have solved the problem already.
> 
> As for the two portions in green, don't they somewhat contradict each other?  The LogO's aren't specializing enough in supply so they're not competent, but the MMT's can't primarily focus on the portions of the supply chain that can ONLY be done by uniformed personnel because they need to "have a full breadth of knowledge as they develop"?.



What OGB said.


----------



## GR66 (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> I agree that MMTs should have experience at the different level of supply but that doesn't mean they have to fill every position. If an Amazon-like warehousing depot is staffed by low cost and inexperienced worker-bees (or even robots) one still needs a certain number of managers/administrators from within the MMT trade to supervise the operation. That provides vital middle and upper management experience for the CoC. One doesn't need to have a uniformed MMT private or corporal doing routine and repetitive jobs pulling item A off shelf B and placing it into basket C then handing it to someone else who puts shipping label D onto it for two or three years to master his trade at the battalion or ship or squadron level. In a properly designed system you can do that type of job with low-cost, barely skilled labour or automation. Trained MMTs should be where they may need to deploy and where the breadth of their training is useful to the "teeth". Putting trained MMTs into jobs that challenge their skills rather than doing repetitive drone work would aid with improved job satisfaction within the trade.
> 
> 🍻


This is more what I was getting at.  I don't see great benefit of a Cpl/MCpl picking orders in a warehouse in Montreal when that uniformed member can't really then be moved to a deployed position in time of conflict without creating a gap in the important supply chain.  Having more senior WO/PO level uniformed staff there though that understand how the facility works as well as have first hand knowledge of what materials should take priority, etc. when everything is in demand at once is vital.  It's getting the right mix.


Oldgateboatdriver said:


> It's not really a contradiction, GR66.
> 
> When HT talks about learning the supply chain, he is talking of a supply tech learning all aspects of exactly that: the supply chain.
> 
> When he talks about the officers, he is talking about the fact that in the navy, our SeaLog officers are generalists, not specialists as in the Army/Air Force. They learn just enough of all the following and are simultaneously responsible for all of the following functions onboard a ship: Finance/accounting/budget, NPF, food services, transportation, supply management, records management (OK for that one they get help from the Cox'n staff), plus other assigned ancillary duties. On land, these are all performed by differently and specifically trained officers.


Understood.  That certainly sounds like a serious issue to me.  While finance and tracking of NPFs, etc. are important functions for an accountable public agency in time of peace, it's the supply of war materials that keep our people alive and effective in the fight during a war.  Hopefully it's something that can be corrected before we're forced to learn that lesson the hard way.


----------



## FJAG (20 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> They don't.  In fact in BLog in Halifax (Base Supply) Civilians (Public Service) heavily out weigh MMTs in leadership and worker bee positions. Civilians have very heavy foot print in 2nd and 3rd lines Supply orgs.  At this point what you espouse would essentially remove any military foot print from the 2nd line back.  You cannot manage something you have no technical or practical experience in, hence the reason we need to have Cpls and Ptes in the 2nd and 3rd lines to gain that experience and an appreciation for the full gambit of how our supply chain operates, or fails too.



You can change any policy or status quo if there is a valid reason for it and the desire exists to make the change happen. Saying that "this is the way it is" is the worst possible raison d'etre for resisting reform albeit it is the predominant reason within government bureaucracies. 

One doesn't need to have spent three years turning wrenches or stocking shelves to become a director or manager of maintenance or supply services. A week or two of OJT/ experience as a shelf stacker in an Amazon-like facility is enough. A general understanding of what your subordinates' jobs are and an education in the systems involved will do. Even better if there have been progressive management/leadership roles along the way starting at, let's say, the sgt or WO level.

Just as important, to be a proper manager/leader of a warehouse facility it would be highly beneficial if the middle and higher end managers were military end-users who have experienced the difficulties of working in the field. Their "customer" experience would be invaluable in keeping the warehousing system responsive to the end-users.

If we are putting trained and skilled (and highly paid even at the private and corporal level) service members into warehouses as shelf stackers and putting civilian managers with little or no experience as end users into the leader/manager roles then we have adopted the worst of both worlds.

$.02

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

GR66 said:


> This is more what I was getting at.  I don't see great benefit of a Cpl/MCpl picking orders in a warehouse in Montreal when that uniformed member can't really then be moved to a deployed position in time of conflict without creating a gap in the important supply chain.  Having more senior WO/PO level uniformed staff there though that understand how the facility works as well as have first hand knowledge of what materials should take priority, etc. when everything is in demand at once is vital.  It's getting the right mix.
> 
> Understood.  That certainly sounds like a serious issue to me.  While finance and tracking of NPFs, etc. are important functions for an accountable public agency in time of peace, it's the supply of war materials that keep our people alive and effective in the fight during a war.  Hopefully it's something that can be corrected before we're forced to learn that lesson the hard way.



There is more to working a 2nd or 3rd line supply job than just picking stores for shipments. Analytics is a huge role, returns and disposal, receipts, shelf life management, warehouse organization, stock investigations, SCA management, right down learning how to build up pallets and prepping for shipment.


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> There are many parts of the CAF which need major overhauls and rebuilding from the ground up. That's never easy but at some point we need to admit that the current supply system, while it might continue to limp along, is no longer fit for purpose and we should never be afraid to look at successful systems on the civilian side for inspiration. We desperately need to curtail our administrative overhead and reinvest the capital in other things including a more capable supply and maintenance system.
> 
> 🍻


Sunk cost fallacy bites many organizations in the butt, the CAF is one of them.



Halifax Tar said:


> Too often I have found my officers miss the nuance and practical application when expressing the concerns regarding Supply when briefing higher command.  I know the CA has dedicated SUPPLY Officers but we in the Navy are being done a disservice but trying to make our Officers only somewhat competent in all facets of the Log Branch.
> 
> I am def not saying my trade doesn't have dead weight.  I think allot of that comes from our management of our people.  Like still insisting on this idea that people cant only be Navy or Army.  We need to stop this.  Meaning get rid of the purple.
> 
> ...


The Naval Officer piece is funny because in the general community they are highly regarded because they have a breath of knowledge that other specialist Log Os do not have. I can see where it can be an issue but that is not much different than CA/RCAF Log O when they do QM roles or are mid-high level Capt jobs as they are seen as Logistics Officers that can solve logistics issues regardless of specialization.

OTOH I am a Supply Officer and did hard supply for 2 years, then went as QM for 2 years, 1 year as 2IC as a Supply Coy, tour as 2IC and then staff G4 Sup so I am fairly decent at supply policy and procedures. Not everyone gets that ability to really dive into their specilization it the CA but I will concede that our folks get more application than our Naval brethren. Where they excel is exploiting the nuances between each of the disciplines and understanding enough of each to get the job done leveraging the experts in every field.


Halifax Tar said:


> I am def not saying my trade doesn't have dead weight.  I think allot of that comes from our management of our people.  Like still insisting on this idea that people cant only be Navy or Army.  We need to stop this.  Meaning get rid of the purple.


Agreed, I detest this purple aspect and causes lots of pain for marginal value.  Treat the NCMs like the Officers, you are one environment and work in one environment but can go to a purple job 


Halifax Tar said:


> Policies ?  How about having people held accountable for the stores they signed for ?  in 21 years doing this job I have seen one person held accountable for their lost clothing on an MLR.  I have never seen a SCA holder held responsible for their lost material on their SCA.  I am not sure if the Army does LCIs, but if people fail these, which happens all the time, these people should be facing career implication.  Instead we just pat people on the back and push bubbles on PERs over to the right, because material management really doesn't matter we will just buy more.


Being held accountable on an MLR or even as an SLOC holder is a CoC resp and that it is not happening is not the result of bad policy. They have the tools both within supply policy and outside of it. FWIW I agree that for SLOC holders it can be frustrating to see someone not sanctioned for poor practices when they knew better. On the MLR front have seen a number of CoC have soldiers pay and put on RMs because of how they lost their kit. QR&O 38.03 is fairly restrictive though especially if a mbr objects to a deduction. 

If I was going to quibble about anything MLR in the policy I would ask ADMMat to explain their rationale for having soldiers utilize insurance when they lose kit. Outside of the Personal, most insurance companies see that as government owned property and will not cover crown property for an individual. It is a bad policy build on bad advice.

That said these are pretty low-level policies that don't affect the supply chain or supply chain management overall (although arguably equipment stewardship is crucial).

When I think of bad supply policy and supply execution, I think of SuperMax's Tutor part allocation, the overusage of 1Z for parts so it needs SM/LCMM intervention before it is releases, over-usage of High Priority Requests  and lack of automation in our system.


----------



## FJAG (20 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> There is more to working a 2nd or 3rd line supply job than just picking stores for shipments. Analytics is a huge role, returns, and disposal, receipts, shelf life management, warehouse organization, stock investigations, SCA management, right down learning how to build up pallets and prepping for shipment.


True. And yet Amazon and car manufacturers and Walmart all manage that with a low-paid warehousing work force and a highly tuned technical system structure with a focus on rapid order fulfilment and on end-user satisfaction.

Are you truly saying that the CAF's system as it sits is the only way to go? Or for that matter a good way to go? End-users and auditors everywhere are disagreeing with that.

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> You can change any policy or status quo if there is a valid reason for it and the desire exists to make the change happen. Saying that "this is the way it is" is the worst possible raison d'etre for resisting reform albeit it is the predominant reason within government bureaucracies.
> 
> One doesn't need to have spent three years turning wrenches or stocking shelves to become a director or manager of maintenance or supply services. A week or two of OJT/ experience as a shelf stacker in an Amazon-like facility is enough. A general understanding of what your subordinates' jobs are and an education in the systems involved will do. Even better if there have been progressive management/leadership roles along the way starting at, let's say, the sgt or WO level.
> 
> ...



I am not arguing for the status quo.  I am simply trying to express that exposure to the different lines of supply creates a a well rounded MMT.  I my ideal universe there would be very little civilian foot print in Supply orgs outside of the menial repetitive jobs that you speak of. 

I would argue your logic of minimum experience and exposure is what's created our current situation.  Right now we run off check in the boxes to prove proficiency.  Posting are for a few years to try and give time for pers to experience the differing scenarios that will arise and let them problem solve through them in order to create a well rounded service member be it what ever trade.  You are pretty much support the Naval LogO method of experience gaining for the NCM corps now.  I will, respectfully vehemently disagree with you on this.  Nothing in the Naval LogO training pattern should be replicated by anyone.

Again there is more to working in a warehouse than stacking shelves and picking orders.  See my previous posts.  And yes we have civilian and military managers all through the CFSS who have zero experience in military logistics, and it shows.


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> It's not really a contradiction, GR66.
> 
> When HT talks about learning the supply chain, he is talking of a supply tech learning all aspects of exactly that: the supply chain.
> 
> When he talks about the officers, he is talking about the fact that in the navy, our SeaLog officers are generalists, not specialists as in the Army/Air Force. They learn just enough of all the following and are simultaneously responsible for all of the following functions onboard a ship: Finance/accounting/budget, NPF, food services, transportation, supply management, records management (OK for that one they get help from the Cox'n staff), plus other assigned ancillary duties. On land, these are all performed by differently and specifically trained officers.


In the grand scheme they do well and punch above their weight nationally likely because they have a such a vast base to draw on.  We are not so specialist in the CA that we become masters of the discipline, many jobs are pan-domain


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

MJP said:


> If I was going to quibble about anything MLR in the policy I would ask ADMMat to explain their rationale for having soldiers utilize insurance when they lose kit. Outside of the Personal, most insurance companies see that as government owned property and will not cover crown property for an individual. It is a bad policy build on bad advice.
> 
> That said these are pretty low-level policies that don't affect the supply chain or supply chain management overall (although arguably equipment stewardship is crucial).
> 
> When I think of bad supply policy and supply execution, I think of SuperMax's Tutor part allocation, the overusage of 1Z for parts so it needs SM/LCMM intervention before it is releases, over-usage of High Priority Requests  and lack of automation in our system.



I do believe I said we need policies that have teeth, not new policies.  You can buck it off as a leadership problem, but until we see CO get fired for his/her shitty concern for his material readiness nothing will change.  Leadership starts at the top.

Those are not low level policies and the have a direct impact on operational capability to to CAF.  The critical shortage of spares for the CPFs is directly caused by shitty material management and stewardship of engineers and officers.   How about the recent recall of sleeping bags and ruck sacks.  If we cant do this well and expect people to be responsible and mature in the stewardship of material that they don't own, how can we expect them to be able to distribute properly, i.e. Tutor parts...

In 21 years I have seen 1 person have to pay for their MLR.  Maybe its a Navy thing...


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I do believe I said we need policies that have teeth, not new policies.  You can buck it off as a leadership problem, but until we see CO get fired for his/her shitty concern for his material readiness nothing will change.  Leadership starts at the top.
> 
> Those are not low level policies and the have a direct impact on operational capability to to CAF.  The critical shortage of spares for the CPFs is directly caused by shitty material management and stewardship of engineers and officers.   How about the recent recall of sleeping bags and ruck sacks.  If we cant do this well and expect people to be responsible and mature in the stewardship of material that they don't own, how can we expect them to be able to distribute properly, i.e. Tutor parts...
> 
> In 21 years I have seen 1 person have to pay for their MLR.  Maybe its a Navy thing...


It is a Navy thing.

MLR policy is low hanging fruit in the grand scheme of supply policy, it may be more readily seen at the lower end of the spectrum but tightening up MLRs policy will not fix our supply chain problems. 

Material stewardship is crucial but if people don't follow the policies in place now what makes you think they will for new policy? Let us not forget ADM Mat makes pan-CAF policy for supply management, they are not going to make some kick ass policy that says fire X because they didn't follow policy.  They do not tell the services how to manage their stocks, and IMHO we are the problem because we do not see equipment stewardship as a command and leadership issue at times. The CA has reinvigorated it for a number of reasons, hell the recent briefing from the CA G4 to new COs says stewardship is crucial and you can't ignore it and break all your stuff because you are screwing the institution (I am sure he said it a lot nicer tho). In my estimation it is still an issue in the CA but getting a bit better.

At the end of the day material stewardship is a cultural command driven thing and no amount of policy will break culture.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> True. And yet Amazon and car manufacturers and Walmart all manage that with a low-paid warehousing work force and a highly tuned technical system structure with a focus on rapid order fulfilment and on end-user satisfaction.
> 
> Are you truly saying that the CAF's system as it sits is the only way to go? Or for that matter a good way to go? End-users and auditors everywhere are disagreeing with that.
> 
> 🍻


Those low paid employees also only do 1 job of the many that run the gambit of a CAF MMT.  They also arent subject to the CSD and the whimsey of the CAF culture and life.  

I am not saying the system is correct, in fact I think its terribly broken.  I just don't think cutting MMT positions and pay is the answer.

Car manufacturers, my Ford dealer couldnt tell me where my truck was for three weeks.  And it never appeared, I ended up buying another.  This was in Sept, after I just come home from a deployment where I and my team supported a war ship thousands of miles away from home, through and pandemic filled landscape and still managed to ensure our stores were in port waiting for us, if not already onboard.  Like you, I thought Ford would be better, I was let down.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

MJP said:


> It is a Navy thing.
> 
> MLR policy is low hanging fruit in the grand scheme of supply policy, it may be more readily seen at the lower end of the spectrum but tightening up MLRs policy will not fix our supply chain problems.
> 
> ...



Fair. 

Again, we dont need new policy we need to actually enforce that policy.  Right now I dont see that happening.  Material stewardship is critical, if we don't enforce it we run out stores.  Command also make their own policy, i.e. NAORDs.  

I think we are in violent agreement


----------



## FJAG (20 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I am not arguing for the status quo.  I am simply trying to express that exposure to the different lines of supply creates a a well rounded MMT.  I my ideal universe there would be very little civilian foot print in Supply orgs outside of the menial repetitive jobs that you speak of.
> 
> I would argue your logic of minimum experience and exposure is what's created our current situation.  Right now we run off check in the boxes to prove proficiency.  Posting are for a few years to try and give time for pers to experience the differing scenarios that will arise and let them problem solve through them in order to create a well rounded service member be it what ever trade.  You are pretty much support the Naval LogO method of experience gaining for the NCM corps now.  I will, respectfully vehemently disagree with you on this.  Nothing in the Naval LogO training pattern should be replicated by anyone.
> 
> Again there is more to working in a warehouse than stacking shelves and picking orders.  See my previous posts.  And yes we have civilian and military managers all through the CFSS who have zero experience in military logistics, and it shows.



My "logic of minimum experience" is solely focused on repetitive jobs where doing the job over a long period of time adds little in value over a short burst of exposure. In my perfect world, every private's first posying in the MMT world would put in two to three years working in a battalion QM graduating to a Coy QM once he has enough experience to work semi independently. When, and only when, he has experience in what life at the end user level is like he would graduate on to other jobs and never ever would he stack shelves in a 3rd or 4th line warehouse.

I have zero knowledge as to how the Naval LogO method of experience works so am not advocating it per se. I see MMT (like maint) as a vital professional trade/classification that needs experts from the ground up BUT which should also recognize the distinction between what are essential career development steps and what's merely getting a job done. IMHO warehousing at the shelf stacking level requires a solid system but can rely on automation or low skilled workers for the actual "shelf stacking".

On the naval LogO issue. I'm an old preunification/integration guy and always thought that the concept of purple trades was a mistaken concept when it came down to certain jobs. Supply and maintenance are two trades/classifications which are a perfect example because the army, navy and air force have very different end-user needs and methods for delivering the service. While perhaps warehousing could work tri-service (at least on the data processing level), such things as "fulfillment warehousing centres", because of the location and needs of specific (and specialized) end user bases and specialized procurements from manufacturers IMHO should probably be separate facilities in order to maximize efficiency. I'm admittedly a little torn by that because I do believe that an Amazonian  🙂 supply chain system ought to be able to easily handle it all (and should very definitely share a common data processing and fulfilment system) while still serving a disparate customer base where army navy and air force specific issues might be aided by a system that branches out. I guess I might be able to have my cake and eat it too if "fulfillment centres" are established which specialize in element specific items but still have the ability to cater to secondary more generalized ones. There's no reason why that couldn't be fit into a common system.

🍻


----------



## FJAG (20 Feb 2021)

MJP said:


> It is a Navy thing.
> 
> MLR policy is low hanging fruit in the grand scheme of supply policy, it may be more readily seen at the lower end of the spectrum but tightening up MLRs policy will not fix our supply chain problems.
> 
> ...


That reminds me of the issue which we used to have (and probably still have) with respect to kit collection from reservists who stop parading. There are two outcomes to the issue: you collect the kit back and get items back on the shelf for reissue or you take some type of collection actions for the monetary value of the item (which is where for a while we legal officers came in). The problem with collecting cash - when you could get it - is that it did not put any kit back on a shelf as the money went into general revenue and not equipment replacement.

Returning kit to shelves was (and probably still is) very much a unit stewardship issue within the units which did not receive enough leadership commitment. One of my first jobs when I qualified as a driver in 1966 was to go out on parade nights to the homes of former gunners and brow beat their mothers into letting me go into Johnny's room and picking up anything brown and putting it into a kit bag to take back to the armouries. We're rather hesitant to do that these days but back then we always had boots and battledress in the QM for new recruits.

🙂


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> My "logic of minimum experience" is solely focused on repetitive jobs where doing the job over a long period of time adds little in value over a short burst of exposure. In my perfect world, every private's first posying in the MMT world would put in two to three years working in a battalion QM graduating to a Coy QM once he has enough experience to work semi independently. When, and only when, he has experience in what life at the end user level is like he would graduate on to other jobs and never ever would he stack shelves in a 3rd or 4th line warehouse.
> 
> I have zero knowledge as to how the Naval LogO method of experience works so am not advocating it per se. I see MMT (like maint) as a vital professional trade/classification that needs experts from the ground up BUT which should also recognize the distinction between what are essential career development steps and what's merely getting a job done. IMHO warehousing at the shelf stacking level requires a solid system but can rely on automation or low skilled workers for the actual "shelf stacking".
> 
> ...



My understanding is CQs dont have MMTs.  They are run but the trade that makes up the regiment i.e. Inf, Arty ect ect.  I am not sure about Svc BNs.  I stand be corrected.  

Ideally for the RCN new MMTs are posted to the base or some other shore unit while they get trained up to go to sea, i.e. OSQAB or NETP as its called now.  Then they are posted to a ship.  They spend 2 to 3 years there and come ashore and again work in a shore based unit, until they cycle back to sea or are posted out of the are.  Again the above idealist as various factors blow that to pieces such as MELs.   

This is the last time I will says this FJAG.  There is more to working in a warehouse than stacking shelves.  Ok ? You need to let go of that meta and embrace that its is more compressive than that.  I am not trying to snow you, I am asking you accept my knowledge and experience.


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> IMHO warehousing at the shelf stacking level requires a solid system but can rely on automation or low skilled workers for the actual "shelf stacking".


I think you are vastly understating how warehousing especially warehousing in the CAF works. It is more complex than monkey put box on shelf, monkey get box from shelf. Life cycle management, inventory control, and a plethora of other tasks roll into managing material, none of it is rocket science at the lowest end but it is more complex especially once you start incorporating ERP interaction and building warehouse structures in the system that match reality on the ground. It is like saying driving a ship is easy, just don't hit anything



> My understanding is CQs dont have MMTs. They are run but the trade that makes up the regiment i.e. Inf, Arty ect ect. I am not sure about Svc BNs. I stand be corrected.


Svc Bn stupidly is all MMTs which is a vast waste of their skill set, welcome to my soapbox as I rant about this often.


----------



## winds_13 (20 Feb 2021)

I am I the only one who read the current Material Management Tech job description and got the impression that they purchase, warehouse, and ship "obsolete stock and equipment"?

From Forces.ca:

Manage the purchasing, warehousing, shipping, receiving, stock control and disposal of obsolete stock and equipment






						Careers | Canadian Armed Forces
					

Search current job opportunities in the Canadian Armed Forces. Explore available careers in the Forces and find your dream occupation.




					forces.ca


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

winds_13 said:


> I am I the only one who read the current Material Management Tech job description and got the impression that they purchase, warehouse, and ship "obsolete stock and equipment"?
> 
> From Forces.ca:
> 
> ...



Good catch, I missed that lol


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> That reminds me of the issue which we used to have (and probably still have) with respect to kit collection from reservists who stop parading. There are two outcomes to the issue: you collect the kit back and get items back on the shelf for reissue or you take some type of collection actions for the monetary value of the item (which is where for a while we legal officers came in). The problem with collecting cash - when you could get it - is that it did not put any kit back on a shelf as the money went into general revenue and not equipment replacement.
> 
> Returning kit to shelves was (and probably still is) very much a unit stewardship issue within the units which did not receive enough leadership commitment. One of my first jobs when I qualified as a driver in 1966 was to go out on parade nights to the homes of former gunners and brow beat their mothers into letting me go into Johnny's room and picking up anything brown and putting it into a kit bag to take back to the armouries. We're rather hesitant to do that these days but back then we always had boots and battledress in the QM for new recruits.
> 
> 🙂


And we stopped doing it as we had to burn up our precious paydays to get that money we would never see.


----------



## FJAG (20 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> My understanding is CQs dont have MMTs.  They are run but the trade that makes up the regiment i.e. Inf, Arty ect ect.  I am not sure about Svc BNs.  I stand be corrected.
> ...
> This is the last time I will says this FJAG.  There is more to working in a warehouse than stacking shelves.  Ok ? You need to let go of that meta and embrace that its is more compressive than that.  I am not trying to snow you, I am asking you accept my knowledge and experience.


In my days the regimental QM was a LogO and the QM staff were Sup techs. The Bty QMS and his staff (usually one other guy) were gunners.

You didn't need to repeat the fact that working in a warehouse has many jobs. I understood that from square one and was focusing on the shelf stacking and pulling jobs - the repetitive and not highly skilled jobs - specifically as the ones that could use change. As to the rest of what goes on in a warehouse - let's just say that much of that could also change because Amazon also has to deal with those issues (admitedly some more than others) and it wouldn't hurt to at least look at how they manage them. Some CAF processes may very well be found to already be optimal and therefore left as is.



MJP said:


> I think you are vastly understating how warehousing especially warehousing in the CAF works. It is more complex than monkey put box on shelf, monkey get box from shelf. Life cycle management, inventory control, and a plethora of other tasks roll into managing material, none of it is rocket science at the lowest end but it is more complex especially once you start incorporating ERP interaction and building warehouse structures in the system that match reality on the ground.


In the same vein, MJP, I'm not understating how warehousing in the CAF or in general works. I fully understand it is a very complex system. I was merely focusing on one element as an example.

The only point I'm making is that when the system is subpar, you need to critically examine every aspect of it because a system is the product of it's constituent parts. Nothing can be left "off-the-table". More importantly you have to examine it in light of other more successful systems and determine if those can and/or should be replicated. There's lot of how Amazon etc does things that applies to a military supply system but other elements don't fit in. We shouldn't, however, consider ourselves so unique that we dismiss other concepts out of hand. We also need to be very careful of how we implement change if we decide we need it. As I mentioned before, Target is a perfect example how one company attempted to clone it's very successful US system into Canada and failed miserably. That's a cautionary tale but should not discourage us from trying to improve things.

IMHO, the development of a highly functional supply and maintenance system is an essential requirement for a military force that should receive every bit of the same attention as the acquisition of a new and essential weapon system because, eventually, that weapon system will either succeed or fail based on the capability of the supply and maintenance system to keep it operating. I expect you and I agree violently on that point. Quite frankly, the supply and maintenance systems are more important because they support the entire gambit of weapons systems across the board and ultimately will result in the success or failure of our force on operations. Anyone can cobble together a system that will function tolerably under peacetime or low stress operations. The system, however, needs to be able to function well and scale up to support full war commitments or it is simply not worth having. That's the challenge.

🍻


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

winds_13 said:


> I am I the only one who read the current Material Management Tech job description and got the impression that they purchase, warehouse, and ship "obsolete stock and equipment"?
> 
> From Forces.ca:
> 
> ...


*Hahahahaha I love cooking, my dogs, and my family. vs. I love cooking my dogs and my family*


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

FJAG said:


> In my days the regimental QM was a LogO and the QM staff were Sup techs. The Bty QMS and his staff (usually one other guy) were gunners.
> 
> You didn't need to repeat the fact that working in a warehouse has many jobs. I understood that from square one and was focusing on the shelf stacking and pulling jobs - the repetitive and not highly skilled jobs - specifically as the ones that could use change. As to the rest of what goes on in a warehouse - let's just say that much of that could also change because Amazon also has to deal with those issues (admitedly some more than others) and it wouldn't hurt to at least look at how they manage them. Some CAF processes may very well be found to already be optimal and therefore left as is.
> 
> ...



No one has argued that the status quo is what is required... But you have called into question the validity of incomes and positions ...  That's where we are coming from. 

Want an effective Supply System ?  Stop tasking officers with finding one and instead task some CPOs and MWO/CWO MMTs and Tfc Techs to find that solution, we are the ones who are in it at depth every day.  The CFSS does not need to be as complicated as it is.  Its people who have no experience in the CFSS that are making these decisions, i.e. Officers and Engineers (LCMMs).

No offence meant MJP you seem to be the exception to my rule.  And again this may be a Navy thing.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2021)

MJP said:


> It is like saying driving a ship is easy, just don't hit anything


It can't be that hard; after all, we let NWOs do it...


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Feb 2021)

dapaterson said:


> It can't be that hard; after all, we let NWOs do it...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Feb 2021)

dapaterson said:


> It can't be that hard; after all, we let NWOs do it...



Yep. Another category of naval generalist officers with just enough knowledge in communications, seamanship, combat, weapons, engineering and (cough! cough!) air ops to be dangerous in every one of them.


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> No one has argued that the status quo is what is required... But you have called into question the validity of incomes and positions ...  That's where we are coming from.
> 
> Want an effective Supply System ?  Stop tasking officers with finding one and instead task some CPOs and MWO/CWO MMTs and Tfc Techs to find that solution, we are the ones who are in it at depth every day.  The CFSS does not need to be as complicated as it is.  Its people who have no experience in the CFSS that are making these decisions, i.e. Officers and Engineers (LCMMs).
> 
> No offence meant MJP you seem to be the exception to my rule.  And again this may be a Navy thing.


Meh there are tons of super smart SNCO and Officers out there. Much of the heavy lifting in higher level policy is officers and civilian though although there is good number of key MWO/CWO/CPO2/1s that are technical in there

If you want your input to matter get involved with the MISL team, they want participation in their sprints.  It is super interesting stuff as they will bring AIMS, NMDS and other standalone system into DRMIS/SAP so we can have a more complete look at our supply chain and avoid disasters like this.

_"The audit discovered that in many instances items were flagged as arriving late in theatre when they had in fact been received with the technicians unaware due to a lack of visibility. Citing a database that informed users when items were in transit, the report noted that it could not provide information on the expected arrival date. Coupled with the lack of visibility, the inability to predict the arrival date of materiel almost certainly had repercussions for impending operations."

Zima, S. (2012). A CANADIAN REVOLUTION IN MILITARY LOGISTICS – IMPROVING THE CF OPERATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN THROUGH BENCHMARKING, CFC Papers. Retrieved from: https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/298/286/zima.pdf_


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2021)

With a number of friends who got to sort through the bazaar of sea cans at Kandahar at different times on different rotos, the amount of stuff that was present that was hidden or unknown or misdirected is mind boggling.

The enterprise (from the top down) needs to be better - which does not necessarily imply adopting wholesale industry practices, as the environments and situations where a military can be called upon to operate are radically different.

eg Q: When you're at sea. what's the difference between having the computers infested with a virus, and someone running DRMIS? A: Techs can fix the virus problem.


----------



## lenaitch (20 Feb 2021)

winds_13 said:


> I am I the only one who read the current Material Management Tech job description and got the impression that they purchase, warehouse, and ship "obsolete stock and equipment"?
> 
> From Forces.ca:
> 
> ...



The never-ending 'Oxford comma' debate.









						What Is the Oxford Comma (or Serial Comma)?
					

The Oxford (or serial) comma is the final comma in a list of things. For example:…




					www.grammarly.com


----------



## YZT580 (20 Feb 2021)

First off MJP air freight is not the be all and end all, it is simply the most efficient but not necessarily the cheapest way to get necessary equipment across this country.  Within country they combine with trucks and trains on local hauls.  Anything more than 1 day in transit should be considered for air freight where possible and practical.  But the problem with supply goes far deeper than planes as has been well illustrated by others posting here and I suspect that getting the actual ops folks to proffer solutions and then listening and implementing them would go a long way to cleaning things up.

With regards to obtaining pilots the answer is quite simple: hire them.  There are dozens of qualified IFR licenses out there looking for employment.  I suspect Air Transat has a few for example.  So start a Air America style operation using civilian pilots and in a fleet of aircraft compatible with whatever airframe is decided upon for the Airbus replacement.  Offer them a five year contract with the opportunity to enlist at the end if they decide to stay civilian or even another five year contract.  They are not military, nor will they be flying into a war zone although UN supply runs could be an option.  Pay rates would be low as these are not high time airline types but entry level wannabes.  

Air Canada used to run a DC8 freighter across Canada every day in each direction.  Emulate their operation.  Start on the east coast going westbound in the morning with one aircraft whilst another starts on the west coast as early in the morning as possible to go eastbound.  You will need a minimum of 5 airframes to enable trans oceanic flights when necessary.


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

YZT580 said:


> First off MJP air freight is not the be all and end all, it is simply the most efficient but not necessarily the cheapest way to get necessary equipment across this country.  Within country they combine with trucks and trains on local hauls.  Anything more than 1 day in transit should be considered for air freight where possible and practical.  But the problem with supply goes far deeper than planes as has been well illustrated by others posting here and I suspect that getting the actual ops folks to proffer solutions and then listening and implementing them would go a long way to cleaning things up.
> 
> With regards to obtaining pilots the answer is quite simple: hire them.  There are dozens of qualified IFR licenses out there looking for employment.  I suspect Air Transat has a few for example.  So start a Air America style operation using civilian pilots and in a fleet of aircraft compatible with whatever airframe is decided upon for the Airbus replacement.  Offer them a five year contract with the opportunity to enlist at the end if they decide to stay civilian or even another five year contract.  They are not military, nor will they be flying into a war zone although UN supply runs could be an option.  Pay rates would be low as these are not high time airline types but entry level wannabes.
> 
> Air Canada used to run a DC8 freighter across Canada every day in each direction.  Emulate their operation.  Start on the east coast going westbound in the morning with one aircraft whilst another starts on the west coast as early in the morning as possible to go eastbound.  You will need a minimum of 5 airframes to enable trans oceanic flights when necessary.


Well I agree it is a plan, and in my opinion not a very viable one but a plan nonetheless. Thanks for clarifying...still not sure how much of our material requires such high priority right away travel. Required delivery date not days of travel should probably drive that IMHO


Regardless I think making our systems talk better, cleaning up processes and properly staging material especially fast moving material will go a long way to reducing some of the issues better than more air transport (of any flavour)


----------



## YZT580 (20 Feb 2021)

Accepted, but why not explore all options and come up with a system that integrates the best instead of putting up with the status quo whilst another 10 years go by?


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Accepted, but why not explore all options and come up with a system that integrates the best instead of putting up with the status quo whilst another 10 years go by?


TBH because most people on here are not the ones creating the solutions. I am involved in the process in a very small way right now and likely a bit larger one in the near future and even then like most of us I will still remain a bit player in the whole mess.

I will say that the plane thing is a likely non-starter as the National Freight Run works decently already, not perfect but with some tweaks can likely bridge some of the gap.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2021)

Just in time delivery too often is in fact driven by forgot to plan.  The commanders who fail to plan should not be incentivized; rather,they should be permitted to fail and either (a) learn or (b) be replaced by those who can plan.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Feb 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Just in time delivery too often is in fact driven by forgot to plan.  The commanders who fail to plan should not be incentivized; rather,they should be permitted to fail and either (a) learn or (b) be replaced by those who can plan.


----------

