# A numbers game



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2017)

TPrudhomme96 said:
			
		

> I just enlisted and am waiting on a job offer. I'm not up to speed on military terms and was just wondering what VR'd means? I saw somebody post about how* allowing recruits to have their cellphones reduced the VR rate by 66%* so I was curious.



Some think that's a victory, others not so much.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Dec 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Some think that's a victory, others not so much.



Its a numbers game. I was told while I was the Crse WO for an Officer DP1 that CAP was not allowed to fail anyone, it was up to the individual trade schools to decide who wasn't fit to be there. So instead of weeding out successively the people who are unfit to the be in CAF (BMQ/BMOQ), unfit to be in their element (BMQ-L, NETP), and finally unfit for their trade (DP1/QL3), everyone passes unless they're a malingerer or a a mental health case.

What a time to be a Snr NCO!


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (23 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its a numbers game. I was told while I was the Crse WO for an Officer DP1 that CAP was not allowed to fail anyone, it was up to the individual trade schools to decide who wasn't fit to be there. So instead of weeding out successively the people who are unfit to the be in CAF (BMQ/BMOQ), unfit to be in their element (BMQ-L, NETP), and finally unfit for their trade (DP1/QL3), everyone passes unless they're a malingerer or a a mental health case.
> 
> What a time to be a Snr NCO!



If we had a healthy rate of recruits coming in, then fire away, but given the numbers we have, we really do need to focus on making the most of what we get. Unless they can figure out a way to solve the recruiting crisis, trying to "weed" out anyone you think is junk is going to cause alot more problems than it solves.


----------



## NavalMoose (23 Dec 2017)

So keeping 10 shitpumps is a better option than say 6 good guys?  :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Dec 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> If we had a healthy rate of recruits coming in, then fire away, but given the numbers we have, we really do need to focus on making the most of what we get. Unless they can figure out a way to solve the recruiting crisis, trying to "weed" out anyone you think is junk is going to cause alot more problems than it solves.



Do we really want a recruit system where everyone passes and problematic recruits are passed on to the next institution (taking up a position and getting paid to boot)?

Case in point during a deployment one of our platoon members had a known internet addiction. He deployed and was set home shortly after due to falling asleep on duty (from being online when he should have been sleeping) and sneaking off to check emails and other sites when he was suposed to be on duty.
There's other cases of soldiers getting out of training exercises (or tieing up the admin system trying their hardest to) because they can't deal with being deployed to the field for extended periods of time. Often I think because of addictions to electronics, gaming systems etc..

Having a 66% increase in recruit numbers sounds great until you see the after math of weak BMQ courses when you try to deploy.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (23 Dec 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do we really want a recruit system where everyone passes and problematic recruits are passed on to the next institution (taking up a position and getting paid to boot)?
> 
> Case in point during a deployment one of our platoon members had a known internet addiction. He deployed and was set home shortly after due to falling asleep on duty (from being online when he should have been sleeping) and sneaking off to check emails and other sites when he was suposed to be on duty.
> There's other cases of soldiers getting out of training exercises (or tieing up the admin system trying their hardest to) because they can't deal with being deployed to the field for extended periods of time. Often I think because of addictions to electronics, gaming systems etc..
> ...



Seeing/hearing of the problems which occur after is very disheartening. The things I’ve seen at the recruit level would make some people sick. Instructors catch wind of some behaviours/incidents/etc, but not all, unfortunately. Things go unreported to staff which should absolutely be. SOME recruits are pulled off permanently, sometimes even right off grad parade, but there are many who make it through who 100% shouldn’t. But it’s certainly not my call and very likely never will be. Maybe through rose-coloured glasses those with the authority are hoping the military environment will straighten them out...eventually...and then they can be somewhat useful?


----------



## Roger123 (24 Dec 2017)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> If we had a healthy rate of recruits coming in, then fire away, but given the numbers we have, we really do need to focus on making the most of what we get.


     From your knowledge/ experience, are the low numbers across the board or confined to specific occupations?(P.S. Not to hijack the subject matter, but how is PFT treating you?)


----------



## Franko (24 Dec 2017)

That's fine. Let them through. 

They hit a wall at trades training and fail either by their own incompetence or lack of intestinal fortitude to do the "next right thing".

Love seeing a grown adult cry because they can't bullshit their way out of failing or being called out on their lack of personal ethics.

Regards


----------



## Quirky (24 Dec 2017)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> That's fine. Let them through.
> 
> They hit a wall at trades training and fail either by their own incompetence or lack of intestinal fortitude to do the "next right thing".
> 
> ...



So now we are left with a useless shitpump who gets benefits and salary that most Canadians will never see in their lifetime. We have too many people in uniform as it is who contribute nothing to their trade. While it's impossible to see how a recruit will eventually pan out, giving out these 25 year contracts is ludicrous.

My initial engagement was 3 years and it was extended grad day on my QL5s to 25 years. So before I even stepped a foot in my unit I was locked in. I've seen people float around my unit for years with no qualifications or absolute use, yet despite all our efforts they are still employed. Its impossible to kick anyone out for simply being a useless twit who no one trusts with a pen let alone a wrench. 

These contracts are monstrosities that need to be reduced to 5-6 year terms and given blessings by immediate supervisors and the COC for any extensions.


----------



## VanIslander (10 Jan 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its a numbers game. I was told while I was the Crse WO for an Officer DP1 that CAP was not allowed to fail anyone, it was up to the individual trade schools to decide who wasn't fit to be there. So instead of weeding out successively the people who are unfit to the be in CAF (BMQ/BMOQ), unfit to be in their element (BMQ-L, NETP), and finally unfit for their trade (DP1/QL3), everyone passes unless they're a malingerer or a a mental health case.
> 
> What a time to be a Snr NCO!



I've seen several COTs caused by Second Lieutenants failing their (air force) trade courses, so unless the army has its own no fail policy, this is hyperbole.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jan 2018)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Love seeing a grown adult cry because they can't bullshit their way out of failing or being called out on their lack of personal ethics.



Sadly, that COA is not unique to the CAF.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jan 2018)

VanIslander said:
			
		

> I've seen several COTs caused by Second Lieutenants failing their (air force) trade courses, so unless the army has its own no fail policy, this is hyperbole.


 We had 2Lts bomb their course as well, but some of those individuals had 0 field skills and would have failed on the final FTX if the CP EX didn't get them first.

We had a small FTX to confirm the field skills required for the final one, and I had to ask why none of them could nav, patrol or some of them even live in the field. That's when I was told BMOQ-L was not supposed to fail people.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Jan 2018)

Nothing like being woken up in the middle of the night because one of the dudes in your shacks room decides it was quicker to pee on the floor then walk out the door and go across the hall to the bathroom.... That being said with my small experience of 4 years in ive seen more decent people than not.


----------



## runormal (11 Jan 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> These contracts are monstrosities that need to be reduced to 5-6 year terms and given blessings by immediate supervisors and the COC for any extensions.



This might have unintentional consequences. I was constantly searching for a "permanent" job until I found one following graduation. Once I signed my letter for an inderterminate job, I stopped looking. I love my current job/team and I wouldn't look for something else in the near future. If I had to play some bullshit "check in the box game" every 5-6 years I'd look for something else.

I think the 25 year engagement or "inderterminate" route is great for star performers , but can and is abused by shit pumps. That being said, until we have proper manning this won't change. Recruiting needs to be overhauled and we need to retain key performers. It is completely unacceptable for the wait times that new recruits face.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Jan 2018)

runormal said:
			
		

> This might have unintentional consequences. I was constantly searching for a "permanent" job until I found one following graduation. Once I signed my letter for an inderterminate job, I stopped looking. I love my current job/team and I wouldn't look for something else in the near future. If I had to play some bullshit "check in the box game" every 5-6 years I'd look for something else.
> 
> I think the 25 year engagement or "inderterminate" route is great for star performers , but can and is abused by crap pumps. That being said, until we have proper manning this won't change. Recruiting needs to be overhauled and we need to retain key performers. It is completely unacceptable for the wait times that new recruits face.



Not only new recruits, returning members also..


----------



## BrewsKampbell (29 Jan 2018)

runormal said:
			
		

> That being said, until we have proper manning this won't change. Recruiting needs to be overhauled and we need to retain key performers. It is completely unacceptable for the wait times that new recruits face.





			
				EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Not only new recruits, returning members also..



This. 11 months to get back in after doing 8 years, then sitting on BTL for 12 months waiting for a 3's because we don't have the personnel.


----------

