# 5000 regular force over 5 years..... just a little question about that



## Lethbridge U (25 Feb 2005)

In reading the 2005 budget (on the DND website) I noticed that they were going to be spending just over 3 billion to hire 5000 regular force and 3000 reservists over the period of 5 years. If you work that out it's like 1000 regular force required per year; I think that is about 3 or 4 times the current intake of candidates. So my question is, when do the flood gates open up for all these applicants? For example is there going to be a demand of say 180 infantry officers instead of the previously noted 60?
Anybody in the know about this?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2005)

Officer Recruitment will probably remain at the same levels as it is now.  What will happen first is that the Training System will have to gear up for larger and more Courses of recruits.  It will take time to train instructors, do the standardization, and find the facilities to house this new influx.  Prior to the closing of Cornwallis, we operated two Recruit Schools and Three Military Universities.  Now we are down to one and one.

Gw


----------



## Ghost (25 Feb 2005)

http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/english/us/about_e.asp

shouldn't that already be able to handle it with 6200 people a year


----------



## Griswald DME (25 Feb 2005)

Haven't they been promising "an additional 5000" for the past few years?   Hasn't happened yet and doubt it will happen this year, unfortunately.

DME


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (25 Feb 2005)

My question is, how long will it take the recuriting centres to process all these applicants...we already know that the recruiting system is abysmally slow...now with all these new spots opening up...god help us!


----------



## patrick666 (25 Feb 2005)

Isn't there 5000 plus already waiting for weeks, months, years, to get in??? Hmmmmm


----------



## ab136 (25 Feb 2005)

Amen!!!  Pat


----------



## Gouki (26 Feb 2005)

Amen to that as well.

But in all honesty, Martin promised it, Martin should be following through with it.

Which like most things, he isn't. I laughed when he talked about the CF and increasing its numbers, just because he's broken so many promises before.

In short ... don't expect to see anything like this till Harper gets in and when he does that's a whole other can of worms..


----------



## kincanucks (26 Feb 2005)

Since we have enrolled 4-5 thousand CLEAN, HEALTHY AND INTELLIGENT applicants each year for the last five years then I am sure we can enrol another thousand CLEAN, HEALTHY AND INTELLIGENT applicants but remember we will have to process three thousand UNCLEAN, UNHEALTHY AND STUPID applicants to get that one thousand.


----------



## Shaynelle (26 Feb 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Since we have enrolled 4-5 thousand CLEAN, HEALTHY AND INTELLIGENT applicants each year for the last five years then I am sure we can enrol another thousand CLEAN, HEALTHY AND INTELLIGENT applicants but remember we will have to process three thousand UNCLEAN, UNHEALTHY AND STUPID applicants to get that one thousand.



wow, recruiter with a bee in his bonnet?


----------



## Gouki (26 Feb 2005)

A lot of recruiting bashing does go down here though (guilty as charged). I guess if someone was bashing something I do I'd get a bit riffed, no matter what the job may be.


----------



## Bert (26 Feb 2005)

From my understanding, there is no public document describing the formation or
specific make-up of this 5K unit.  For sure, as Kincanucks alluded to, it will not be 
made up of raw recruits or members just completing trades training.  The force will
likely be made up members from various sections, units, bases, and wings in the
CF.  The new members/recruits will still go through their training and posted to their
units until they are deployable (individually, or as a section or unit).


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2005)

So kincanuck - are you suggesting that of the Canadian population, or is it just the standard of applicant that crosses your sightline, only 25% are capable of serving in the CF?  1000 sufficiently clean, bright and healthy to meet the standards.

To me that suggests the standards need reviewing or else your view of the applicants might need recalibrating.  Can't say that any salesman that I encountered, that believed that 3/4s of the people that walked through his door were unworthy of his product, would be likely to convert me into a customer.

Or perhaps its just that after having recommended 4 customers to your managers and discovered that only 1 was considered worthy that you are questioning the effort you have to "waste" on the other 3?

If it's the latter - is there a simpler way to help you screen applicants?


----------



## kincanucks (26 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So kincanuck - are you suggesting that of the Canadian population, or is it just the standard of applicant that crosses your sightline, only 25% are capable of serving in the CF?   1000 sufficiently clean, bright and healthy to meet the standards.
> 
> To me that suggests the standards need reviewing or else your view of the applicants might need recalibrating.   Can't say that any salesman that I encountered, that believed that 3/4s of the people that walked through his door were unworthy of his product, would be likely to convert me into a customer.
> 
> ...



I am saying that through CFAT testing, drug screening, reliability checks and medical processing, it takes 3 applicants to produce one enrollee. There is nothing wrong with the standards, in fact they should be higher.


----------



## Inch (26 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill, if you think 1 out of 3 is a bad ratio, you should hear what the pilot numbers are like. I don't know how true they are since I never saw them in writing, but I was told once by a recruiter that it takes nearly 100 applicants to get one pilot trained to wings standard. The majority are eliminated right away by medical problems such as glasses, hearing, heart murmurs, among other things. None of which may be critical, but they're not acceptable for the pilot trade. The rest are eliminated at Aircrew selection or during one of the 3 phases of pilot training. The helicopter course after mine in Portage lost 4 of 7 students, they were less than 3 months from getting their wings.

Kincanucks may have some more updated numbers since the ones I stated above are about 5 years old.


----------



## Gouki (26 Feb 2005)

Yeah but pilots are one hell of a tall order .. not like some recruit or something

I see what you're saying and the point you're making just that it seems kind of like apples/oranges to compare regular recruit applicants to something as tough as the pilots got to go through to get their wings


----------



## TCBF (26 Feb 2005)

Man oh man, the stories I could tell....

  Some recruiters came through CFRS Cornwallis and toured the school every year.  They got a tour of a platoon barracks, and this time it was mine.  I lit into one of the recruiters (a Sgt from my Regt) and demanded to know why he kept sending me psychos.  He told me that an "activist" lawyer in Saint John, NB, would say to the judge " ...my client wants to straighten out in the Canadian Military.."  Hizzoner, who probably thought we were still using Bren Guns, would say "Fine idea!", and let the JD off.  The lawyer would then assist the process where required, by leaning on the recruiters and threatening political action.  To say that the recruiters who allowed themselves to be bullied in this manner were geldings unfit for military service is an understatement.  Anyway, we had to endure the social and intellectual scum of Saint John ( and believe me, that is saying something) being scraped off the streets and delivered into barracks 34-7, or whatever. This was 1984-86. 

We don't need this.  Ninety per-cent of our time is spent administering two per-cent of our people.  We are NOT a social welfare agency, and we no longer have the robust military justice and administrative procedures used by modern conscript armies to keep their animals in line (jail- then release).

I was smarter when I was a Pl Comd in St. Jean.  I would phone the recruiter up directly and say "You sent me a "three" didn't you?"  

"Uh, yeah, I did, how do you know he is a three?"

"Because I read your manual!"

  Stop sending us trash, we have a fifty per-cent pass rate here, do you know how much that costs the taxpayers?

That was in 1996

Tom


----------



## patrick666 (26 Feb 2005)

I, personally, think the standards are too high and that is one of the root causes of all this whole CFRC juggling act. I know it is a serious profession and requires serious people. However, I do not think we need super healthy, intelligent, hardworking, people to be recruited - look at the federal government that employs them - because it is their duty to improve themselves through BMQs and SQs and as they soldier on, they will learn. I think most recruits know what is expected of them and accept that. Every bag of lips there are assholes, though. If we supposedly have some of best military training in the world, then let us be trained.  

*shrugs* not trying to start an argument or derail this thread, but that's my opinion. 

For the 5000 people to be recruited, I hope I'm one. =)

Cheers

Patrick


----------



## Love793 (26 Feb 2005)

To add to what Kincanuck has said, here's an example of the 3 to 1 ratio.  We've placed ads on the HRDC site, for 6 trades here in Windsor (Reserve Jobs), we've received over 120 resumes, walk ins and other email/phone enquiries.  From that after weeding out initially about 20 (no citizenship, criminal records or lacking gr 10), we're left with about 100 "Contacts", of that we'll probably get 30+ applicants.  Of the thirty plus applicants, after all the stages of recruiting, we might get 10 new soldiers.


----------



## Gouki (27 Feb 2005)

I don't think the standards are too high really.. 

I myself, currently, don't stand a snowballs chance in hell at applying Officer. As it is, I hardly made the grade for NCM.

I'm not stupid by any means or lazy or whatever ... I just did poorly in high school. Everybody makes mistakes and everybody pays for them. I'm just glad that despite all the BS that's happened so far, the military is giving me the chance to make things better.

In short, they are the only people willing to give me that shot... so .. I'm quite fine with the standards as the way they are now (at least for education..). I do think the physical fitness test could be a little bit more ... rigorous.. I felt like a deranged circus freak the way I was going up and down those steps to that crazy music. It wasn't exactly the most challenging thing I've done, hell I started laughing halfway through it and the PSP staff member couldn't help it and laughed as well.


----------



## Docherty (27 Feb 2005)

I agree the PT test could be harder especially the Step Test, but if they were to test people on the "Beep Test" it requires a lot of space. I assume that there is some type of research behind the step test and it can tell if candidates are fit enough for the CF.


----------



## TCBF (27 Feb 2005)

What we should REALLY be spending money on is the MMPI 2 testing, or equivalent psych testing.  I suppose as long as Canada sees the military as just a make work project for semi-literate rednecks, there is not much hope in that.  The myth of the super-human Canadian volunteer is just that - a myth.  

One psycho cost us an Airborne Regiment, twenty more, and we won't have an Army.  Perhaps that's the idea?

Tom


----------



## noreaga808 (27 Feb 2005)

IMO the stardards aren't high at all, if anything some requirements should be increased in level of competence. For example the physical testing portion of recruitment is too minimal in comparison to what is actually required of you during training and in your career. I know that they are going to build up your physical ability but the initial test should reflect true military standards better. As it stands now the minimal physical requirements gives the impression that the Military is a cake walk to the uninformed. I found Police recruitment testing to be harder and even those weren't that taxing on you. Because of these low standards you are attracting more of the lower quality applicants. The current standards make the military look like a minimum wage job, that anyone can do it. That statement applies to most trades in the military not all.
On the other hand some requirements I thinks should be reduced. A prime example for myself would be vision standards for pilots. It's disheartening to be turned down for something that is out of your control when you check out other countries accepting applicants with less then perfect vision. I'm just a little bitter because that shut down my application file quick when I applied years back. Actually thats the only standard that I think should be reduced.

A major problem with the CF's in my opinion is that it isn't attracting a broad enough range of recruits. From what I see alot of civilians don't see the Military as a viable option for a career. It's due to the fact that people just don't really know much about what the military offers and just see the negatives stigmas that have been associated with the Military. If the public was better educated about the military through advertisement, better media coverage and whatever other means you can think of I believe that you would end up attracting more "higher quality" applicants.


----------



## TCBF (27 Feb 2005)

A good point.  

A lot of people want to go back to Regimental recruiting, selection and training.  The Australians have outsourced their recruiting of officers and tradesmen to a civilian company that also administers the medicals and the psch and aptitude tests.  You can bet they don't throw those tests at anyone who walks in the door.  Too expensive.  

I believe we have to take a more scientific and business like approach.  Remember, we are essentialy recruiting a force that may have to function as a CADRE of a much larger mobilized force.  In WW1, with a population of 6,000,000, Canada put 600,000 in uniform.  Today, with a population of 32,000,000, we should have the capacity of putting 3,000,000 in uniform in a pinch - more, if we are directly threatened on our home soil.   Our tiny force of 52,000, and our even tinier (now how did we get THAT backwards?) reserves would be the basis of that expansion.  Look at the quality control issues we had in WW2 with some orgs expanding to fifty times their original size.  We need a good initial cadre.

Tom


----------



## Ghost (27 Feb 2005)

> Since we have enrolled 4-5 thousand CLEAN, HEALTHY AND INTELLIGENT applicants each year for the last five years then I am sure we can enrol another thousand CLEAN, HEALTHY AND INTELLIGENT applicants but remember we will have to process three thousand UNCLEAN, UNHEALTHY AND STUPID applicants to get that one thousand



You better not be calling me a UNCLEAN, UNHEALTHY AND STUPID applicant.


----------



## kincanucks (27 Feb 2005)

Well if you have passed the CFAT, Drug Screening, Medical processing and background checks then I won't.


----------



## kitrad1 (27 Feb 2005)

I don't believe that there is an issue in attracting and processing 5 000 people in whatever time frame. Now, depending on the occupation...that's another story. Also, let's not confuse recruiting challenges with training ones.

Standards are too high, standards are too low. Too easy to get in, too hard to get in.....Everyone has a viewpoint. I think that it's important to remember that there are about one hundred different occupations and as much as we'd all like to be a pilot, it's not always possible. People need to have realistic expectations and a realistic understanding of what it is they want.


----------



## Gouki (27 Feb 2005)

I was very surprised by the standards for pilots, mind you I knew beforehand it was a tough route but when the Captain showed me the requirements and the scoring process they used .. Wow. He showed me the way they determine score and the marks needed in high school and university alone.

Well, to put it bluntly, any pilot has my automatic respect for sure, as well as people who even took the course but couldn't cut it.

Kincanucks: So let me get this straight. If Ghost didn't pass the CFAT or drug screening or medical processing or the background check it would make him unclean, unhealthy and stupid? How arrogant of you. I thought you of all people would have realized that there are many factors in things. Just cause someone fails the CFAT doesn't make them stupid. One of my friends didn't quite score extremely high on the CFAT and he was told they had doubts about his ability to be a soldier, but they let him in anyways. He then proceeded to graduate basic as the 2nd in the course. Now he's on his QL3 and is within the top 5 academically.

But, because he didn't do so hot on the CFAT, he must be stupid according to your mentality.


----------



## kincanucks (27 Feb 2005)

Kincanucks: So let me get this straight. If Ghost didn't pass the CFAT, drug screening, medical processing and background check it would make him unclean, unhealthy and stupid? How arrogant of you.

Yes as far as I am concerned.   While he may be clean, healthy and smart for civie street he would not be for the CF.   Arrogant I may be but I am clean, healthy and smart and in the CF.   

PM your name and recruiting centre I want to see what they assessed you as.


----------



## Gouki (27 Feb 2005)

Okay so that's fair and all - not for the CF.

But I'm confused as to how you can basically admit to being arrogant like that and not find anything particularly wrong with the statement. 

note: I finished editing my previous reply when I noticed you had replied to it.

Anyhow, as my editing shows, just cause someone fails something like that or does poorly in no way makes them anything you said.


----------



## Ghost (28 Feb 2005)

No I passed all the testing but I still have not recvied a job offer.

The CFAT was a cakewalk and the guy giving me the interview didn't know what a GED is.


----------



## Gouki (28 Feb 2005)

Hmm.. some interesting things today.

Kincanucks despite our glaring differences here you may find this interesting, and I would like to see your take on it.

Apparently the Ombudsman was in investigating CFRC Winnipeg (the RC I deal with and that I am not extremely fond of) due to receiving a healthy amount of complaints from applicants there ... and even from some of the staff themselves.

The CO went to see a Captain that my father knows and he told the Captain to tell the absolute truth about the place but most importantly how the system is a crock of s**t and makes everything ridiculously impossible and slow. From what I gathered they all seem to have a big beef with some medical form, or something involving the medical.

I think it had something to do with why they should be sending forms to those doctors in Borden for opinions as if the doctors that saw us weren't enough? This is what's happening now.. A doctor here said there was no problem with my left knee (I had 2x arthroscopy on it in the last 4 years) and put "absolutely minimal" under the "risk of injury" part on the form. He told me he couldn't outright say "no chance" because I did after all have surgery in the past.

Now, here's where my recruiting officer himself gets upset. He thinks - again from what I've been hearing from conversations between him and my father, that it's stupid to send these forms to doctors in Borden for more opinions. He said "shouldn't one doctors opinion be sufficient? If we think he's fit to serve and the doctor agrees why waste time with Borden?" The CO was also raising this issue with the Ombudsman, according to the Captain.

The Captain tried his best to insure these doctors don't read into "absolutely minimal" too much by attaching a note saying how I do muay thai kickboxing and stuff like that to get them to realize that my knee is fine now. But, he voiced his concerns and once again his frustration at these certain forms which according to him is "holding damn near everyone up"

Kincanucks, as the most vocal recruiting staff member here, what do you think about the system and this medical thing? I wish I remembered the name of the form and the specifics but I hope the examples I provided are clear enough so that you know what they are referring to.  As a recruiter do you feel the system really messes with you guys?


----------



## kincanucks (28 Feb 2005)

The system as it stands requires the review of all questionable medicals by the Recruiting Medical Officer (RMO) in Borden.   Questionable medicals are those such as yours.   This is required because we can't enrol people that might have an existing condition that will require the CF to look after.   Now while the RMO can review and sign off most questionable medicals he/she sometimes has to go higher for another opinion especially on specialised cases.   These cases are sent to Directorate of Medical Policy.   It can become frustrating to the applicant and others that when a civilian doctor says you are good to go why can't that be accepted.   Unfortunately, in complex cases, the CF medical system will not solely rely on the civilian doctor mainly because that doctor is a civilian and really doesn't know anything about military service and universality of service so they must review all of these cases.   In this time of covering your asses I don't see this policy changing even with the Ombudsman's office involved.   I think the form you are referring to is the Statement of Tasks form which asks family doctors to state whether a person, in their opinion, can do certain military type tasks.

I can't comment specifically on the goings on in CFRC Winnipeg but sounds like there are some serious issues there.

Personally,   I think if someone wants to join the CF then they must be subject to the most intense scrutiny to ensure that we are getting the best possible person, without baggage, for the job.   Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2005)

I'm sorry kincanucks but I can't let this pass.

You are apparently working as a Recruiter, someone who, as I would understand it, is tasked with reaching out and encouraging people to join an organization.  Admittedly trying to find the best quality applicants for the job, but still the primary task is to enroll people in order to fill courses and maintain strength.

The situation that is being described here suggests rather that the Recruiting organization is not primarily focused on attracting recruits but instead on screening out hordes of riff-raff.

Am I to understand that there is no manpower shortage in the CF and that there is a backlog of people clamoring at the doors of armouries and recruiting offices across the country?  Or, if there is a manpower shortage, it is because the nation of Canada is now populated by crippled, young asthmatics of limited intelligence and unclean habits?

I am confused, no doubt due to my own limited intelligence.


----------



## kincanucks (1 Mar 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm sorry kincanucks but I can't let this pass.
> 
> You are apparently working as a Recruiter, someone who, as I would understand it, is tasked with reaching out and encouraging people to join an organization.   Admittedly trying to find the best quality applicants for the job, but still the primary task is to enroll people in order to fill courses and maintain strength.
> 
> ...



There is no difficulty at this time to attract interested applicants into the CF.  The CF is currently meeting its recruiting goals with clean (no drug use problems or security issues), healthy (meet the common enrolment standards and the MOC medical standards) and intelligent (pass the CFAT and have higher education) applicants.  So we have filled all regular force occupations to at least 97% of their yearly requirement every year for the last five.  Reserves are another matter but that comes down to poor attraction of suitable applicants.

I have noticed that the young people that apply for the CF (regular and reserve) are for the most part are unhealthy (product of a lazy and fast food society?) and have the poorer academic records and yes it sometimes comes down to weeding these people out.

Now there are backlogs of applicants for both the regular and reserve force but these applicants but the majority of these applicants don't meet the medical standards and/or have reliability or security issues.

As I have mentioned before:  Yes we need people but we are only taking the most suitable and the most competitive applicants and those with the minimum are not going to make it in the door.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2005)

Fair enough kincanucks, and thanks for the straight answer.

So, in your opinion, will there be any problem in recruiting the extra 5000 bodies and filling out the ranks?

Also, as per this link, http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/family_e.asp,   the official limit on regular force strength is 62,000.   This number has been up on this site for some time now and predates Paul Martin's additional 5,000.   Presumably that means that the cap on strength is to go up to 67,000.

Of the current authorised strength of 62,000 we are regularly informed that there are only 52,000 or so effectives.   This means 10,000 ineffectives or 10,000 vacant positions. Now while recognizing that Canadian society, the Government and the CF owe a debt to those members that have served faithfully and have become "ineffective" in service, and thus need to be rewarded and taken care of, is it your position that these "ineffectives" are of better quality, or more precisely of better value, to the CF than the young folks applying and being turned away?

What would be the effect on the CF if those "ineffectives", again assuming that the positions weren't vacant, were replaced by "effectives"?   Would it not be reasonable to suppose that 10,000 replacements for the "ineffectives", together with Martin's additional 5,000, or 15,000 new bodies in total would breathe new life into the CF and create a much more effective force?   

Or am I totally misconstruing the concept of Effective Strength and Authorised Strength?

Also you state that the problem with the Reserves is "poor attraction of suitable applicants".    What can your people at the CF Recruiting System/Service do to Recruit more suitable applicants?   Seeing as how the matter has apparently been taken out of the hands of the Units themselves.

And Ghost, I can understand how your blood pressure might be rising about now but regardless of comments made let's try and keep this away from the personal.   It doesn't serve anybody's case well.


----------



## 043 (1 Mar 2005)

Troops,

Enough piss moaning back and forth. It's all good but you have to think about where is the CF going to house these people? There isn't the quarters available for all these pers.  Infrastructure is going to have to be built prior to the big pers boom.

CHIMO!!!


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2005)

And then there is that Chimo!!!

Cheers.


----------



## Long in the tooth (1 Mar 2005)

If medical docs are being screened in Borden, it means the local physicians are not making the right decisions.  Authority is normally devolved when competency and trust is established, and rescinded when lost.  This cannot be a good thing.  Is this true of all CFRCs?


----------



## Gouki (1 Mar 2005)

I'm beginning to change my attitude into thinking it's not so much recruiting themselves now but a crappy system in need of an overhaul to do away with some of these pointless "garbage wastes of time" as a PO put it ... and perhaps a decent amountl lies with the CFRC's themselves. This one in Winnipeg .... many people were complaining about it and the fact that the ombudsman was lurking around and asking questions shows something is not going right.

But the doc that checked me out, he's a sports ... something or other. Point is he's familiar with knee injuries and all that jazz, so it's stupid as to why they wouldn't take his opinion to heart and not waste time with Borden, but this is something my recruiting officer has been raising hell with in regards to the system.


----------



## kincanucks (1 Mar 2005)

So, in your opinion, will there be any problem in recruiting the extra 5000 bodies and filling out the ranks?

Not at 1000 per year for the next five years.

Also, as per this link, http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/family_e.asp,   the official limit on regular force strength is 62,000.   This number has been up on this site for some time now and predates Paul Martin's additional 5,000.   Presumably that means that the cap on strength is to go up to 67,000.

Way above my pay grade.

Of the current authorised strength of 62,000 we are regularly informed that there are only 52,000 or so effectives.   This means 10,000 ineffectives or 10,000 vacant positions. Now while recognizing that Canadian society, the Government and the CF owe a debt to those members that have served faithfully and have become "ineffective" in service, and thus need to be rewarded and taken care of, is it your position that these "ineffectives" are of better quality, or more precisely of better value, to the CF than the young folks applying and being turned away?

Unfair question comparing apples to oranges.

What would be the effect on the CF if those "ineffectives", again assuming that the positions weren't vacant, were replaced by "effectives"?   Would it not be reasonable to suppose that 10,000 replacements for the "ineffectives", together with Martin's additional 5,000, or 15,000 new bodies in total would breathe new life into the CF and create a much more effective force? 

Way above my pay grade.  

Or am I totally misconstruing the concept of Effective Strength and Authorised Strength?

No

Also you state that the problem with the Reserves is "poor attraction of suitable applicants".    What can your people at the CF Recruiting System/Service do to Recruit more suitable applicants?   Seeing as how the matter has apparently been taken out of the hands of the Units themselves.

Wrong, reserve units are responsible for their own attraction.


----------



## TCBF (1 Mar 2005)

Remember YTEP in 1983?   We had a youth unemployment problem, and someone in DND let it slip that, even though we were taking in 8,000 a year, we could easily take in 5,000 more.   It went to cabinet, where some were "against the expansion of the military for any reason" (in other words "I have a job - screw him").   Eventually, the program was a go.   Bases all over the country brought in recruits.   In Petawawa, units trained their own recruits under the Battle School in Pet, then ran their own TQ3s.   

We got some good people with that plan.   Only prob was, it was a year long contract. If, after a year, your trade was overborne, you had to re-muster on your re-engagement to a RegF three year contract.   So, if you started as a widget tech, then ended up as a mess tin repairman, not so good.

(Sung to the tune of the Puppy Chow commercial):"Y-Tep, for a full year, till they're full-grown!"

Tom


----------



## Stirling N6123 (2 Mar 2005)

These 5000, I would assume they would be spread across the board and split among Army, Airforce and Navy. Who decides who gets what? And for what trades?


----------



## kincanucks (2 Mar 2005)

Stirling N6123 said:
			
		

> These 5000, I would assume they would be spread across the board and split among Army, Airforce and Navy. Who decides who gets what? And for what trades?



Mostly to the army.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (2 Mar 2005)

Ghost said:
			
		

> No I passed all the testing but I still have not recvied a job offer.
> 
> The CFAT was a cakewalk and the guy giving me the interview didn't know what a GED is.



Well then stop whining and wait like so many others on this board are.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (2 Mar 2005)

Well, I have the goal of becoming an MP. But, I am slogging away on working   on a Police Foundations Diploma. It's going to take me about 3 years to get it completed part-time, as I still have a family to feed and house. I would like to join 4999 other folks wishing to join the CF, would it be possible to get in on an army trade, maybe SIG OP, or VEH Tech or MAT Tech and then when I have the diploma, if I choose too, change trades to the Military Police?


----------



## kincanucks (2 Mar 2005)

Stirling N6123 said:
			
		

> Well, I have the goal of becoming an MP. But, I am slogging away on working   on a Police Foundations Diploma. It's going to take me about 3 years to get it completed part-time, as I still have a family to feed and house. I would like to join 4999 other folks wishing to join the CF, would it be possible to get in on an army trade, maybe SIG OP, or VEH Tech or MAT Tech and then when I have the diploma, if I choose too, change trades to the Military Police?



Yes join as a Sig Op now and there will be no trouble for you to transfer to MP later on. Honest. >


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (2 Mar 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Yes join as a Sig Op now and there will be no trouble for you to transfer to MP later on. Honest. >



Yeah, once you join us you won't wanna leave!  > ;D


----------



## kincanucks (2 Mar 2005)

Sig Bloggins said:
			
		

> Yeah, once you join us you won't wanna leave!   > ;D



Won't don't you mean can't?


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (2 Mar 2005)

Shhh...we're not a cult, really... ;D


----------



## meni0n (2 Mar 2005)

Sig trade is low on personnel so OTing will be hard.


----------



## kincanucks (2 Mar 2005)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Sig trade is low on personnel so OTing will be hard.



Hmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Gouki (3 Mar 2005)

im scared now


----------



## Ghost (3 Mar 2005)

> Well then stop whining and wait like so many others on this board are



I guess your right I really shouldn't be complaining.

If WW3 breaks out you really think the army is gonna be saying hey this guy can't be a soldier he didn't go to university or will MP's be kicking my door down to drag me off to BMQ because I meet the minimum requirements.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (3 Mar 2005)

Well I guess i can take what ever i can get from the above statements, basically, I can get in, but would need an act of god to get into an MP trade? If i am reading this right.


----------



## Canadian Sig (3 Mar 2005)

Well as I understand it you would need to do 4 years before you can re-muster ( and thats 4 LONG years as a sig op.lol) and then your trade has to be open to letting you OT (ocupational transfer) and your destination trade has to be accepting. All in all a "do-able" situation but also a gamble. 

p.s. sig op is always closed to ot OUT of!


----------



## Stirling N6123 (3 Mar 2005)

Is signals that bad? I would Imagine it to be a popular trade as one would have to be slightly more intelligent to operate comms gear and the like. So a gamble you say?.....Hmmmm...thanks for the info.


----------



## Canadian Sig (3 Mar 2005)

Dont get me wrong. I love being a sig op but you have to be sure that it's what you want because it may be hard to get out of later.


----------



## Griswald DME (3 Mar 2005)

Thats a pretty good ratio actually.  RCMP recruiting numbers are much lower than that.  If you post any job you get a lot of unqualified applicants, not just a few, a LOT.  I don't see all this complaining going on about "STUPID" applicants as being justified, especially on a public forum.  



			
				Love793 said:
			
		

> To add to what Kincanuck has said, here's an example of the 3 to 1 ratio.   We've placed ads on the HRDC site, for 6 trades here in Windsor (Reserve Jobs), we've received over 120 resumes, walk ins and other email/phone enquiries.   From that after weeding out initially about 20 (no citizenship, criminal records or lacking gr 10), we're left with about 100 "Contacts", of that we'll probably get 30+ applicants.   Of the thirty plus applicants, after all the stages of recruiting, we might get 10 new soldiers.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (3 Mar 2005)

Stirling N6123 said:
			
		

> one would have to be slightly more intelligent to operate comms gear



HAHAHAHA Sorry I found that very funny for some reason.  ;D Some of the people I've been on course with... makes me wonder how they were one of the "1 in 3"...


----------

