# RCN seeks Candidates for Skilled Re-Enrolment Initiative



## Ping Monkey (5 Apr 2018)

Saw this on the RCN's Facebook page...  https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/



> RCN seeks Candidates for Skilled Re-Enrolment Initiative
> 
> Royal Canadian Navy Thursday, 5 April 2018
> 
> ...




Any retirees looking for work (again)?


----------



## runormal (6 Apr 2018)

It's very interesting to see the comments. It looks like morale is in the shitter. In all honesty, I'm very glad that my CT took forever to be processed so that I was in a position to be able to decline it. It sounded like being in the Navy was a good go back in the day.

"Hmmm back in but this time no beers at sea after watch or steak night wine, oh wait treat you like a kid in a foreign port. I wonder when they are going to learn that it’s no always money that keeps them in. QOL is a big motivator."

"Agree about quality of life. A few beer was the one perk I truly enjoyed. Just sipping a beer and having a steak on the flight deck during a bbq was a real popular event. To go back and be treated like a child is not attractive. 

They need to keep the Army from pushing their values on the rest of the CF. I can only guess that it is there that the idea of dry ships came from. Stuck in a metal box with no opportunity to relax can only add to the stress."

"Mass punishment killed and is still killing the navy. 
Instead of disciplining the abusers, they removed the alcohol for all.
Instead of disciplining the drunken idiots, they came up with cinderella leave for all twice in every port. And if you happen to be duty second day, you don't have a port visit.
Hands fall in and supper onboard on the first day in is also a good way to ruin a day in port. What better way to tell people how good of a job they are doing and how they are the best ship in the fleet (and in the world!) Than keeping them onboard when they don't need to be there.

Keep asking more of the sailors and keep removing the perks and it will only get worse.

But... What kind of sign in bonus are we looking at? 100k, 150k?"

"As you once said it so elequently Jeff Parker... "I'll consider re-enlisting when the beer machine does as well!"   haha!... even a rat knows when to abandon a sinking ship!"

"Yeah join the Navy, where they force you to only have 2 beers on your own time in port. Just what you need after a few weeks at sea, to go to a nice port and not be able to have more than 2 beers. Stop treating people like babies and maybe you can keep your sailors."


----------



## NavalMoose (6 Apr 2018)

Sounds like runormal hit the nail(s) on the head


----------



## Pusser (6 Apr 2018)

Some of those comments are somewhat true, but exaggerated.  The folks writing them appear to be drawing conclusions only from what they read in the papers, as opposed to actual service on board ships today.  Captains can still authorize beer for banyans, so having a beer and a steak on the flight deck is still possible.  The only real consequence of the so-called "dry" policy (HMC Ships are not actually dry) is that a few day workers can't have a beer at the end of the day.  Since we generally steam 1 in 2 nowadays, the majority of the ship's company would never have the opportunity to have a beer anyway.  The consequences of the new policy are not as dire as some folks seem to think.

I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other.  Would the sailors that have died in hotel rooms recently, still be alive if they had been on board and looked after by their mates?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (6 Apr 2018)

With the difficulty of keeping qualified people in uniform, the RCAF could use the Skilled Re-Enrolment Initiative as well. Hopefully it works for the RCN.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (6 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other. Would the sailors that have died in hotel rooms recently, still be alive if they had been on board and looked after by their mates?




If I'm following your logic correctly, then you must also believe that leave should be restricted in home port - because everyone going to their homes and apartments doesn't help sailors bond, nor are they able to look after each other. We could have all ranks live onboard for their whole careers.

And depending on which sailors dying in hotels you are referring to, do you really believe that those individuals don't do 'what they were doing' back in Canada - where no one is looking after them?


----------



## Pusser (6 Apr 2018)

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> If I'm following your logic correctly, then you must also believe that leave should be restricted in home port - because everyone going to their homes and apartments doesn't help sailors bond, nor are they able to look after each other. We could have all ranks live onboard for their whole careers.
> 
> And depending on which sailors dying in hotels you are referring to, do you really believe that those individuals don't do 'what they were doing' back in Canada - where no one is looking after them?



Don't be silly.  I'm in no way saying that we need to restrict leave in home port.   I can only draw upon 35 years of experience, but I've noticed that sailors tend to get in the most trouble in foreign ports.  Bonding with and looking out for each other tends to lessen the consequences of foreign port adventures.  I have seen a definite shift over the last few decades.  Even on board the ship, sailors don't socialize and spend time with each other as much as they used to.  Folks tend to keep to themselves - watching DVDs on individual players, web surfing, facebooking, etc.  They spend so much time staying connected with home, that they fail to connect with others on board.  It would seem to me that this makes being away from home that much harder, which in turn lowers peoples' inclination to continue serving.  I have friends from my early years of service in ships that I'm still in contact with.  From the later years, not so much.


----------



## cld617 (6 Apr 2018)

The same can be said for everyone these days, you can't even go for dinner with someone without them being on their phone. We're a wired society now, and with that comes some additional isolation. The difference? We don't stick the general public in a metal bucket for months on end at sea, they need to get away. I think those 35 years may serve equally as a detriment to your ability to draw conclusions on the matter as they are beneficial.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (6 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Don't be silly.  I'm in no way saying that we need to restrict leave in home port.   I can only draw upon 35 years of experience, but I've noticed that sailors tend to get in the most trouble in foreign ports.  Bonding with and looking out for each other tends to lessen the consequences of foreign port adventures.  I have seen a definite shift over the last few decades.  Even on board the ship, sailors don't socialize and spend time with each other as much as they used to.  Folks tend to keep to themselves - watching DVDs on individual players, web surfing, facebooking, etc.  They spend so much time staying connected with home, that they fail to connect with others on board.  It would seem to me that this makes being away from home that much harder, which in turn lowers peoples' inclination to continue serving.  I have friends from my early years of service in ships that I'm still in contact with.  From the later years, not so much.



My point was that if bonding is so important to you, why not do it at home too? Because I think it's an equally ridiculous idea as forced bonding in a foreign port.

I would argue that many people join the Navy just to go 'see the world'. If anything restrictions on foreign port leave cause sailors to release, not a lack of forced bonding opportunities. After 2-4 weeks at sea a sailor deserves a break away from the boat and their bosses. Just because you want to bond with everyone does not necessarily mean that everyone wants to bond with you. If you don't like going away anymore it might be time to hangup those seaboots.


----------



## Stoker (6 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Some of those comments are somewhat true, but exaggerated.  The folks writing them appear to be drawing conclusions only from what they read in the papers, as opposed to actual service on board ships today.  Captains can still authorize beer for banyans, so having a beer and a steak on the flight deck is still possible.  The only real consequence of the so-called "dry" policy (HMC Ships are not actually dry) is that a few day workers can't have a beer at the end of the day.  Since we generally steam 1 in 2 nowadays, the majority of the ship's company would never have the opportunity to have a beer anyway.  The consequences of the new policy are not as dire as some folks seem to think.
> 
> I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other.  Would the sailors that have died in hotel rooms recently, still be alive if they had been on board and looked after by their mates?



Some CO's have Banyans and some don't so while possible its not a certainty by any means. The drinking at sea is not about the fact we can't have a beer is that we can't be trusted to have that beer when drinking at sea was never the problem. Its nice that that pricing of alcohol has been relaxed a bit, $1.50 a beer vice $3.00 but that was just a response to profits being down and whole stores of beer going bad. The answer is not restricting the sailors freedom while ashore.


----------



## dimsum (6 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other.



I wouldn't equate "going to hotels" with not bonding socially.  I'd imagine they prefer paying for a hotel for a night or two for comfort reasons, but still get together for meals/drinks/whatever.  Also, it's understandable that one would want a break from being in close quarters while in a foreign port.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2018)

Some ships have documented mould issues; mess decks are all over capacity as every ship sails with every bunk full. There is little privacy and and no comfort left as ships designed for a complement of 220(ish) routinely sail with north of 250 onboard.

I can fully understand why sailors want to get away from the ship and into a hotel room every once and a while.

I too, am not a fan of infantilizing sailors. We trust them with billion dollar weapon systems and send them away from home for 6-9 months at a time. But, since a small percentage of people are problem children, we find it easier to punish everyone than actually deal with individual bad behaviour.


----------



## Ostrozac (7 Apr 2018)

I've seen a trade before that embraced the skilled re-enrollee with signing bonus option as the solution to their manning issues. It didn't work, for two reasons that should have been obvious in retrospect. First, most of these re-enrollees can't/won't stay for very long, they had already put in partial careers plus however long they were out, so they are already that much closer to retirement. Second, all these guys left for a reason, if you don't fix that reason, others will continue to leave for the same reason.

I suspect that until the RCN as an institution understands and fixes their dual issues with attraction and retention, skilled re-enrollees are just a bandaid on a continually bleeding wound.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (7 Apr 2018)

Random story:

One time when I was in the navy I went to a career manager / MOC briefing. Someone asked the CPO what the navy was going to do to reduce the number of people releasing. The CPO answered that the navy wasn’t going to do anything because it was a self-correcting problem. He explained that the navy just had to wait for the economy to get worse and then people would fight to stay in the navy since there wouldn’t be any civy jobs. 

- this was 6 or 7 years ago, so I guess that plan isn’t working so well.   :rofl:


----------



## Lumber (7 Apr 2018)

When I got posted to an RSS position at a Naval Reserve Division, my unit had 160 sailors.

We've been one of the top recruiting units in the entire Naval Reserve, and in 3 years, we've recruited *105 *sailors.

And today, our unit strength is now... 185.

How's that for retention.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2018)

Question is always: Where did they go? 

About 12-15% of PRes attrition is CTs to the Reg F, there's another big piece from more remote units that is migration to larger cities (some of who stay in)... the devil, as always, is in the details.

EDIT: Quick math: with 35 in per year, and 3 year growth of 25 pers, that suggests a 15% attrition rate (annual).

Based on exit interviews, why are people leaving?  What are the time points when they leave?  When I had access to data from across the Army Reserve, spikes were Year 0 ("This is not for me"); year 1 ("Done school and leaving"); and year 12 ("Finally got my CD").  Interestingly, the proportion of year 0 leavers to the total year 0 cohort was about the same as in the Reg F, but that attrition is all but invisible at the Reg F unit level, since it's generally at St Jean and the schools where it occurs.

Understanding why people leave, and the point in their personal life / career when they leave, means you can (ideally) identify problems with (a) attraction - you're recruiting the wrong people; (b) career management - you're not giving people training and opportunities when they are able to take advantage of them; (c) leadership - you're not giving people what they want; or (d) a little bit of everything, and other stuff as well...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Question is always: Where did they go?
> 
> About 12-15% of PRes attrition is CTs to the Reg F, there's another big piece from more remote units that is migration to larger cities (some of who stay in)... the devil, as always, is in the details.



Indeed. If a good percentage of those people went to the Reg F, one could argue that there is no systemic loss at all.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2018)

Last number I saw was 750-800 CTs (Res to Reg) annually.  With a PRes of ~24K enrolled, 800 CTs represent over 3% of the total strength annually.

Reg to Res numbers are not tracked as closely (unfortunately); the one dataset I saw for about a one year window suggested that the number making that jump was about 1/3 of the number going the other way.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Apr 2018)

I have advocated since at least 1993 that the numbers of people going Res to Reg (and vice versa) should be tracked and Res units that are particularly adept at CTing people either way should be rewarded with extra resources.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Apr 2018)

Personally you couldn't pay me to go back to the Navy. I had way to many bad experiences by a poor CoC to even consider it (didn't even realize how poorly they were treating me in comparison to others at the time). Lack of training, no leadership or guidance, clear favouritism, failure to charge when charges were clearly required (not minor stuff, rather the stuff people spend years in jail for), no parts and tools, some really poorly behaving individuals which were ignored (things like scrapping their food off on the floor instead of into the garbage because the dish line up was long and they didn't like waiting), taking away of alcohol, and the treating you like a child. 

This is literally a case of the grass being greener on the other side, and at least for the Mar Eng trade, it 100% is. I make more as a apprentice, have been given more responsibility, more time off, and the ability to refuse to come in (at least for OT). In one month recently I spent 150,000k on parts to fix equipment in my area, without even having to fight to get the parts. 

When I was in the Navy I was given next to no trade training then sent to the fleet. Once in the fleet there was still given next to no training and guidance. Instead was given only the worst jobs because no one wanted to help train me on how to do my job and unlike everyone else I would actually do the worst jobs properly (bosns mate, scullery, etc.). I learned later on that most of them would purposely not do the job correctly as they knew our weak CoC would put them on a good job elsewhere and send someone like me up there to take their place as they then wouldn't be harassed by the cooks/bosns over why there sailor was doing a poor job.

Working civvy side I now know how poorly trained most our maintainers are. Literally we are a joke when it comes to maintenance and I am amazed that we haven't killed anyone yet though the Navys poor practices. Working on equipment without lockouts, using improper tools for the job, completely unguarded shafts and other moving equipment in a unstable platform (i.e. a ship), all sorts of very sketchy/unsafe methods of getting equipment into the spaces, etc. 1950s safety in a modern environment, simply not acceptable as that is how people get killed.

Leaving the Navy was the best decision I ever made.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have advocated since at least 1993 that the numbers of people going Res to Reg (and vice versa) should be tracked and Res units that are particularly adept at CTing people either way should be rewarded with extra resources.


With the numbers for CT being so low compared to off the street entry to the RegF, that system would be a lottery basically. 

It would work if we significantly boosted the numbers for skilled CTs to the RegF, which would actually encourage units to get their members to CT. Folks releasing from the RegF should be encouraged to go to PRes instead of just straight to SuppRes.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With the numbers for CT being so low compared to off the street entry to the RegF, that system would be a lottery basically.



It's about 15% of intake.  Adjustable in-year if the occ desires to do so.  And not all individuals who wish to CT are suitable for their desired trades (CFAT scores for example).



> It would work if we significantly boosted the numbers for skilled CTs to the RegF, which would actually encourage units to get their members to CT. Folks releasing from the RegF should be encouraged to go to PRes instead of just straight to SuppRes.



It's a question of what is needed in the Reg F.  If fifty basket weavers want to CT, but the Reg F is only looking for hip-hop dancers, then it's irrelevant.


As for Reg F transfers: I know a number of units that successfully and deliberately recruit retiring Reg F members - some even try to poach their RSS staff , if they're getting close to release.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SOME....Folks releasing from the RegF should be encouraged to go to PRes instead of just straight to SuppRes.


Some others should face a combination of: a) non-disclosure contract, so they can't tell people they were actually in the CAF; and b) compulsory vasectomy so they don't breed.

I've seen ex-RegF people, with delusions of competence informed by doubtful war-stories do terrible things to Res units.

ymmv


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Apr 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Some others should face a combination of: a) non-disclosure contract, so they can't tell people they were actually in the CAF; and b) compulsory vasectomy so they don't breed.
> 
> I've seen ex-RegF people, with delusions of competence informed by doubtful war-stories do terrible things to Res units.
> 
> ymmv



Whole-heartedly agree. I've been in that unit and seen the person who maxed out at Cpl in the RegF somehow get promoted to Sgt in the PRes and now be in charge of things...  :trainwreck:


----------



## Lumber (7 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With the numbers for CT being so low compared to off the street entry to the RegF, that system would be a lottery basically.
> 
> It would work if we significantly boosted the numbers for skilled CTs to the RegF, w*hich would actually encourage units to get their members to CT. *Folks releasing from the RegF should be encouraged to go to PRes instead of just straight to SuppRes.



This is a very... fickle subject. 

One the one hand, we want to support the fleet, the RCN, and Canada as a whole.  CT'ing to the RegF should be seen as achieving part of our core mandate.

On the other hand! More and more, PRes units are being held to the same standard as RegF units. I've seen this growth even in just the 3 years I've been working an RSS job. At first glance you might think, "Great! They should be held to the same standard as the RegF!". 

The problem is, while there is an entire career management system that forecasts, recruits, and trains personnel to ensure that most Reg Force billets are filled, the same cannot be said about PRes units. We are at the mercy of volunteerism. Take USEMC, for example. My unit has 185 people, including several senior NCMs with not enough Snr NCM positons. As such, we've had CPO2s running our USEMC for the last several years, and we've done a bang up job. Now, lets look at HMCS QUEEN in Regina. They have something like 65 sailors total, and very few senior personnel. Do you think _they_ have a effective USEMC? 

USEMC is just one example. There is a unit in NAVRES where the Chief Clerk is a NCdt, numerous ones who have 0 actual HR or Fin Clerks, there's one where the AdminO books travel through HRG for the whole unit, some where they have 0 NPP/NPF personnel.

How are these units supposed to keep up with the ever increasing amount of administration, reports, returns, and inspections that are being thrust on them? 

I'll tell you, sending their best people to the RegF is _not _the way.

So, you might have trouble convincing them to "encourage" their members to join the RegF.


----------



## FSTO (7 Apr 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> When I got posted to an RSS position at a Naval Reserve Division, my unit had 160 sailors.
> 
> We've been one of the top recruiting units in the entire Naval Reserve, and in 3 years, we've recruited *105 *sailors.
> 
> ...



Used to be 3 to 1 (recruit 3 to retain 1) but now its up to 4 to 1 or more? Damn.

I have no idea what the solution is to this. I know the mantra at sea now seems to be "Work Hard, Work Harder!" But when I joined there seemed to be more opportunities for relaxation such as sailing 1 in 4 whenever we weren't on an exercise.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Apr 2018)

That's the problem with our Reserve system as it is. Either it's there to support the RegF by providing as close as possible training and readiness to the RegF but on the Thursday Night/2 weekend a month model, or it provides a separate force that will require extra training to bring them up to speed on all the stuff that had to be cut out.

A lot of the problem is the PRes wants its cake and to eat it too. Its not sustainable to force the same training that the RegF does onto someone who's only able to commit a couple weeks out of their summer vacation to train. Yeah, there's lots of training the RegF does that's redundant, but even cutting all that wouldn't make up for the shortfall in time, especially for highly technical trades.


----------



## Stoker (7 Apr 2018)

Its interesting to note that only 55% of Kingston Class sailors took their transfer to the regular force under the "Big idea" all transfers at rank. It actually gutted the Naval Reserve not that we were in trouble already. It certainly didn't help.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other.  Would the sailors that have died in hotel rooms recently, still be alive if they had been on board and looked after by their mates?



There is the problem;  people (like you) trying to tell adults what to do on their off time.  I 'disappear' into my hotel room when I am away sometimes.  I've just spent X amount of time in the rental car, in the briefing, on the plane and then back for the de-brief, and back in the rental car, with the same dozen'ish people.

I'm an adult and I like to be able to make my own adult decisions.  That 'privilege'  : is disappearing in the CAF with the snr leaderships CYA 'group policy' orders, like 2 beer / day on ex or deployment (the latest one down from the RCAF CofC).    Again, it's not that having more than 2 beer a day is important to people, but being treated like a fucking adult certainly is.  Although I don't drink, I'm in agreement with them, all of them, on that point.


----------



## FSTO (7 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There is the problem;  people (like you) trying to tell adults what to do on their off time.  I 'disappear' into my hotel room when I am away sometimes.  I've just spent X amount of time in the rental car, in the briefing, on the plane and then back for the de-brief, and back in the rental car, with the same dozen'ish people.
> 
> I'm an adult and I like to be able to make my own adult decisions.  That 'privilege'  : is disappearing in the CAF with the snr leaderships CYA 'group policy' orders, like 2 beer / day on ex or deployment (the latest one down from the RCAF CofC).    Again, it's not that having more than 2 beer a day is important to people, but being treated like a ******* adult certainly is.  Although I don't drink, I'm in agreement with them, all of them, on that point.



Back in the day when we weren't being paid as much (pre 1997?) and especially if you had a family, not too many guys could afford a hotel in a foregin port. Thus most of us would pre action in the ship, go ashore and hit the bars and then head back to the ship for the night. There were no force protection needs back then so the duty watch was fairly small compared to now so everyone would be able to get a full weekend ashore once in a while.
I was inland at a NRD from 95-99 so, like Pusser, I was surprised at my first time in PH in 99 that the entire WR went to hotel rooms as soon as we were secured. No bit a socializing, no relaxing with your mates, nothing. Just disappearing to Waikiki Beach and not to be seen again until we were getting ready to sail on Monday morning.

Not to say that there was anything wrong with the culture change but it was a shock to me. 

Now to the being treated like adults thing. When every action of the CO, Fleet Commander, Formation Admiral, CRCN and CDS is being scrutinized with a fine tooth comb and even the most minor of indiscretion is a basis for firing then for sure they will micromanage and curtail all forms of fun! Until the pendulum of puritanical righteousness resets itself we can expect more not less curtailment of enjoyment at sea or on exercise.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Now to the being treated like adults thing. When every action of the CO, Fleet Commander, Formation Admiral, CRCN and CDS is being scrutinized with a fine tooth comb and even the most minor of indiscretion is a basis for firing then for sure they will micromanage and curtail all forms of fun! Until the pendulum of puritanical righteousness resets itself we can expect more not less curtailment of enjoyment at sea or on exercise.



Calling BS on this.  I was away from the RCN when the couple of incidents barely made a ripple in news outside the coasts.  In fact what made more of a ripple to double double Canadians was the asinine knee jerk reactions that followed by our senior leadership. 

We had an anti alcohol guy at them helm then and this was an excuse to inflict his personal beliefs on our organization.  

As for the health of the RCN recruiting and retention, if working for the RCN is so great why is this even a topic?  Until this org tackles the hard issues like culture and leadership I expect more of the same.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Apr 2018)

Unfortunately, Halifax tar, there have ever been two things only that manage to change Navy culture or leadership approach:

(1) War; or
(2) Fleet wide mutinies (sometimes known as "incidents" in Canada).

And I agree to call BS on FSTO's view - I was about to do the same. But in my case, it was going to be based on the fact that the senior "management" of the Navy/CAF being scrutinized with even minor indiscretion leading to firing is something that they slowly but surely brought upon themselves through their past failure to forget that they were once sailors/airmen/soldiers and react to the civilian leaders by cowering instead of simply telling them off - its life in the military and IF the culprit went too far, then their CO would handle it - not them. If they had consistently given the civilian at DND, including ministers and above the line: "These are soldiers - not boy scouts. If they crossed the line, they will be disciplined at the appropriate level of command. And, that's the end of it.", they would not be in the fix they find themselves in now, where they have to bow down to every stupid request from civilian for political correctness and human perfection.


----------



## FSTO (7 Apr 2018)

I may have mis-wrote. 

I'm in no way condoning the actions of senior leadership to Cover Their Asses. I was just pointing out that they seem to have been unable to display backbone, let people in positions of responsibility below them do their jobs and defend those decisions to our political masters. And until the pendulum swings back we'll continue to see more of the same.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Now to the being treated like adults thing. When every action of the CO, Fleet Commander, Formation Admiral, CRCN and CDS is being scrutinized with a fine tooth comb and even the most minor of indiscretion is a basis for firing then for sure they will micromanage and curtail all forms of fun! Until the pendulum of puritanical righteousness resets itself we can expect more not less curtailment of enjoyment at sea or on exercise.



I'll just quickly add, I didn't think FSTO wrote that in the sense he agreed with it, I thought he was just identifying the State of the Union we face today.  As I mentioned, the RCAF or at least 1 CAD has recently been ordered 2 beer per man/woman per day on Ex or deployment.  So basically, if I go to Wainright to support _Maple Clusterfuck _again (which, for the record I hope I do NOT), 2 beer per day.  Even on a no-fly day.  In Canada.  Even though we have 12 hour bottle to throttle/8 hours before duty rules in the Div Orders.  This came out after the VIP flight that, IIRC, the VCDS and CFCWO were both on that resulted in a recent news fiasco.

 :dunno:


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I may have mis-wrote.
> 
> I'm in no way condoning the actions of senior leadership to Cover Their Asses. I was just pointing out that they seem to have been unable to display backbone, let people in positions of responsibility below them do their jobs and defend those decisions to our political masters. And until the pendulum swings back we'll continue to see more of the same.



FTSO I may have come across inappropriately harsh.  My apologies if so.


----------



## dimsum (7 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll just quickly add, I didn't think FSTO wrote that in the sense he agreed with it, I thought he was just identifying the State of the Union we face today.  As I mentioned, the RCAF or at least 1 CAD has recently been ordered 2 beer per man/woman per day on Ex or deployment.  So basically, if I go to Wainright to support _Maple Clusterfuck _again (which, for the record I hope I do NOT), 2 beer per day.  Even on a no-fly day.  In Canada.  Even though we have 12 hour bottle to throttle/8 hours before duty rules in the Div Orders.  This came out after the VIP flight that, IIRC, the VCDS and CFCWO were both on that resulted in a recent news fiasco.
> 
> :dunno:



Wait a minute, I thought the rule was for TD/ops outside Canada?  Does that mean that whenever 407 Sqn goes to Greenwood on TD for sims, that rule still applies?!  I surely hope not.  

Anyways, that's quite a split from the original thread.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Apr 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, Halifax tar, there have ever been two things only that manage to change Navy culture or leadership approach:
> 
> (1) War; or
> (2) Fleet wide mutinies (sometimes known as "incidents" in Canada).
> ...



I truly hope I am not in the RCN should it ever engage in a shooting war again.  I’d hope in the long run we’d be victorious but the beginning will be a blood letting while the organization sheds the shackles of careerists and uniformed bureaucrats.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Wait a minute, I thought the rule was for TD/ops outside Canada?  Does that mean that whenever 407 Sqn goes to Greenwood on TD for sims, that rule still applies?!  I surely hope not.
> 
> Anyways, that's quite a split from the original thread.



I didn't see the order, just got briefed on it verbally from the ATF WO last month when we were *co-located*.  *any/all exercises and deployments* is the way it was breifed to me.  It was the big reason we left before the Intl Party from what I could tell.


----------



## FSTO (7 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> FTSO I may have come across inappropriately harsh.  My apologies if so.



No worries.


----------



## Monsoon (8 Apr 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> When I got posted to an RSS position at a Naval Reserve Division, my unit had 160 sailors.
> 
> We've been one of the top recruiting units in the entire Naval Reserve, and in 3 years, we've recruited *105 *sailors.
> 
> ...


NAVRES' long-term formation-wide attrition trend is a very consistent 50% per five years (releases, CTs, etc, etc included). I'd guess your "missing" 25-odd people in the last three years are attributable to Big Idea CTs, though it's hard to speak to the demographic/economic trends at work in a single unit over a short time span.

Part of the function of an armed force (and its reserve in particular) is to retain the institutional capability to scale up manpower very very quickly. Skilled re-enrolment schemes, "retention" focus and extended retirement ages just to retain core peacetime force size are all tactical-level fudges that fail to address the strategic force generation failure. We like to sneer at the US military for running a very training-light force generation model that churns personnel, but I'd argue that's not the "wrong" approach. The real trade-off is the cost of running a system like that, and the compromise we make in the interests of saving money is to try to squeeze retention and to multi-purposes our TES PYs.


----------

