# D.I.E. cis-het white men bun fight [Split from:SWO badge]



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I don't want to pass a negative judgement on the position.  I'm dismayed that people thing we aren't representing them well enough.



I can understand being dismayed at this; sure the Chiefs have supposed to be doing this job. 

But, well... can anyone who by definition is a very very long ways away from being a junior ranks member be actually trusted to adequately represent the interests of said junior personnel? I mean, hell, can they be trusted to even properly _understand _the interests of the average junior ranks member? 

Representation should be best done by members of the group being represented. People who are, or at least have very recently, lived the experiences of the folks they're trying to represent. People who have a good idea of what it actually means to be doing the job; now, not what it was like 15 years ago. 

There's a reason that unions are represented by people who are selected by the bargaining group, and not being represented by someone in middle management hand-picked by the CEO. 

This of course also shouldn't be applied just to rank. It's also farcical to have the CDS tweeting out something saying "Conversations on diversity, inclusion, and culture change are not incompatible with our thirst for operational excellence. I count on my senior leaders to champion culture change. Diversity makes us stronger, inclusion improves our institution. We are #StrongerTogether", when it's accompanied by a picture of the most homogeneous group of old white men you've ever seen in your life.


----------



## Furniture (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I can understand being dismayed at this; sure the Chiefs have supposed to be doing this job.
> 
> But, well... can anyone who by definition is a very very long ways away from being a junior ranks member be actually trusted to adequately represent the interests of said junior personnel? I mean, hell, can they be trusted to even properly _understand _the interests of the average junior ranks member?
> 
> ...


I was with you until the end... 

Should we fire the top brass because their gender and race don't align with current trends?  How many white men are you ok with firing because they happen to be white, and men? 

Also, isn't that an old pic? I'm pretty sure the CDS there is MacDonald.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Furniture said:


> I was with you until the end...
> 
> Should we fire the top brass because their gender and race don't align with current trends?  How many white men are you ok with firing because they happen to be white, and men?
> 
> Also, isn't that an old pic? I'm pretty sure the CDS there is MacDonald.



No, I'm not suggesting we fire them all. But at the very least they shouldn't be having any discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion when _there's only old white men in the room_. 

*Invite some representatives of the demographic groups that you're talking about.* Rely upon the people who can give you actual insight into the issues facing people. Again, back to the previous discussion, of having a Command Master Sailor to address concerns for the MS and Below, rather than expecting some Chief to be able to do that job. Don't try to solve problems involving groups of people without making any effort to actually listen to them.

Having a seat at the table is rather important. 

And it's an "old" pic, being from last year. I dunno about you, but I rather doubt we've fixed all of the department's problems in the last 15 months. I'm not convinced we've fixed any of them to be honest.


----------



## Furniture (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> No, I'm not suggesting we fire them all. But at the very least they shouldn't be having any discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion when _there's only old white men in the room_.
> 
> *Invite some representatives of the demographic groups that you're talking about.* Rely upon the people who can give you actual insight into the issues facing people. Again, back to the previous discussion, of having a Command Master Sailor to address concerns for the MS and Below, rather than expecting some Chief to be able to do that job. Don't try to solve problems involving groups of people without making any effort to actually listen to them.
> 
> ...


To what level of demographics do we extend the invites? 

Race? 
Race and rank? 
Race, rank, and element? 
Race, rank element, and gender?
Race, rank, gender, element, sexual orientation? 
Race, rank, gender, element, sexual orientation, and other defining characteristics? 

I suspect that no matter what the CAF does, someone will find a reason to be upset.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Furniture said:


> To what level of demographics do we extend the invites?
> 
> Race?
> Race and rank?
> ...


Right... so instead what, don't make any effort whatsoever?


----------



## Furniture (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Right... so instead what, don't make any effort whatsoever?


Not what I said, I asked what level of representation was "acceptable". 

Like I said earlier, I think representation from the actual Jr. pers is important. I'm just curious about what you'd do to ensure the CAF had more representation at the table? 

It's cheap and easy to slag the system, but what would you do to fix it?


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Honestly? Unionization. If you want one thing we could do that would be the most effective at changing the way we do business for the better, it's a unionized Canadian Armed Forces.

Direct bargaining by actual representatives selected by the people that they're representing, rather than relying upon the "goodwill" of some generals or admirals very occasionally seeking feedback from junior personnel and even more rarely taking action based upon that feedback.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I can understand being dismayed at this; sure the Chiefs have supposed to be doing this job.
> 
> But, well... can anyone who by definition is a very very long ways away from being a junior ranks member be actually trusted to adequately represent the interests of said junior personnel?



Yea. They are called Senior NCOs; Sgts and PO2s.

Maybe they just aren’t giving you everything you want so you don’t talk to them anymore.  





btrudy said:


> I mean, hell, can they be trusted to even properly _understand _the interests of the average junior ranks member?
> 
> Representation should be best done by members of the group being represented. People who are, or at least have very recently, lived the experiences of the folks they're trying to represent. People who have a good idea of what it actually means to be doing the job; now, not what it was like 15 years ago.
> 
> ...



Old white men is a racist statement.  You can’t discriminate against people because of their age or colour.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Old white men is a racist statement.  You can’t discriminate against people because of their age or colour.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> No, I'm not suggesting we fire them all. But at the very least they shouldn't be having any discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion when _there's only old white men in the room_.
> 
> *Invite some representatives of the demographic groups that you're talking about.* Rely upon the people who can give you actual insight into the issues facing people. Again, back to the previous discussion, of having a Command Master Sailor to address concerns for the MS and Below, rather than expecting some Chief to be able to do that job. Don't try to solve problems involving groups of people without making any effort to actually listen to them.
> 
> ...



Not fire all of them. But fire some of them.  Because of their age, gender or colour.

You’re a genius. Let’s use racist practices to improve the CAF, that are against the Human Rights Act and Charter.


Old white men.   Age/colour/gender.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Not fire all of them. But fire some of them.  Because of their age or colour.
> 
> You’re a genius. Let’s use racist practices to improve the CAF, that are against the Human Rights Act and Charter.


Gee it's almost like you didn't bother to actually read my comment. This is of course an ongoing trend with you.

Again, let me spell it out in simple words. I did not advocate firing anyone. I said, "No don't fire everyone", and then I proceeded with my actual suggestion, which didn't involve firing anyone at all. 

Learn to read.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

I don’t need to read.  You are just trying to justify your racist attitude and behaviour.   You are part of the problem in the CAF; you claim to be trying to improve culture using practices that do not treat all equally. 

Old white men.  Age/colour/gender.    You can’t change the definition of discrimination to suit your agenda - and you said “fire some of them” based solely on those criteria.

Fire one of them/some of them/all of them…now make it about FN members, or any other anthills or age group.  

Image saying “those are all young black men.  We should fire them”.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I don’t need to read.  You are just trying to justify your racist attitude and behaviour.   You are part of the problem in the CAF; you claim to be trying to improve culture using practices that do not treat all equally.
> 
> Old white men.  Age/colour/gender.    You can’t change the definition of discrimination to suit your agenda -



I think it's pretty clear that you're not arguing in good faith, but on the off chance you are, lemme explain something.

The fact that all the senior leadership that was in the room that day was a white male is *a direct result of systemic institutional discrimination built into the CAF's hiring and promotion processes*. Shit like that doesn't just randomly happen. It's not a coincidence. It's bigotry in action.

Acknowledging that as a problem and trying to fix it is the opposite of being racist.

Ignoring it is being racist.

Pretending like trying to fix the problem is racist itself and fighting against efforts to do so is actively supporting white supremacy.



Eye In The Sky said:


> and you said “fire some of them” based solely on those criteria.



No, I did not.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

So you’re ok with racist attitudes and conduct as long as it’s just against “old white men”. 

Got it. 

Here are a few bits from some of our Defence Ethics policy.  Note - there is no “except for old white men” clause. 




Suggesting a group of leaders were promoted solely based on bigotry etc is irresponsible and certainly doesn’t “respect their dignity”. 

You don’t seem to get it;  you can’t cherry pick what groups you will treat fairly and what ones you won’t.

The CAF goal is for ALL to be treated fairly.  Including old white men.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

While we're at it, for the love of god could you also learn how to copy and paste text instead of screenshotting everything?



Eye In The Sky said:


> Suggesting a group of leaders were promoted solely based on bigotry etc is irresponsible and certainly doesn’t “respect their dignity”.
> 
> You don’t seem to get it;  you can’t cherry pick what groups you will treat fairly and what ones you won’t.
> 
> The CAF goal is for ALL to be treated fairly.  Including old white men.



If the system is set up such that cishet white men are more likely to end up in positions of power than people who aren't cishet white men, then yes, the system is itself inherently discriminatory.

If all groups were "treated fairly", then we'd get people in all groups having equal shots at attaining such positions, with representation at all levels proportional to the size of their demographic group.

Since we're not, it's clear that the system needs to change in order to fix this glaring and outrageous problem.

An equitable and fair selection and promotion strategy needs to dismantle the unfair structural advantages currently baked into the system that work to provide cis people, hetero people, white people, and men (and of course those who are all of the above). The advantages that come along as a result of merely being who they are were not fairly earned, but those people under the current system absolutely benefit from it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> While we're at it, for the love of god could you also learn how to copy and paste text instead of screenshotting everything?



Nope.  That’s how I roll;  the info source is clear that way.  Providing the link alone is too vague sometimes.  The applicability and credibility of ref’s info should be the higher priority.



btrudy said:


> If the system is set up such that cishet white men are more likely to end up in positions of power than people who aren't cishet white men, then yes, the system is itself inherently discriminatory.
> 
> If all groups were "treated fairly", then we'd get people in all groups having equal shots at attaining such positions, with representation at all levels proportional to the size of their demographic group.
> 
> ...



Here’s the difference;  I don’t assume every single white male who is successful is because they are white.

I am not so daft as to believe there are not changes needed.

Despite this, I don’t share the attitudes that meet the definition of racism towards white people.

“Respect the dignity of all people”.  *ALL people*.

This is the way forward for the CAF.  Including…old white men.

Until you get that, you’re really _*not*_ getting it at all.  You’re just behaving contrary to our defence ethics hiding under the false umbrella of “inclusion”, feeling safe and justified at targeting the group you hold biases toward.

That is the exact OPPOSITE of what we need in the CAF today, and tomorrow.  For many months and years to come.

Remember, it’s ok to challenge yourself and your own biases.  The falls under the Courage conversation in our Defence Ethics statements. That is what we do need in the CAF.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Nope.  That’s how I roll;  the info source is clear that way.  Providing the link alone is too vague sometimes.  The applicability and credibility of ref’s info should be the higher priority.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dismantling systemic discrimination does not disrespect the dignity of the people who previously benefited from said discrimination, and it's frankly farcical to suggest so. Neither does recognizing the impact that it's had on the people selected to lead our organization. 

I really don't think you're arguing in good faith. It is not being racist towards white people to get rid of their unfair advantages. It is not being racist to white people to note the obvious fact that they've had (and continue to have) unfair advantages that other demographic groups don't.

Ditto with men, cis people, heterosexuals, etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Dismantling systemic discrimination does not disrespect the dignity of the people who previously benefited from said discrimination, and it's frankly farcical to suggest so.



What strikes me as farcical is to suggest the sole reason every Officer who is old/white/male or any combination of those 3 did not succeed based on abilities/accomplishments.

I argue for the equal treatment of ALL.

Nothing more, nothing less.   And I will argue that point with vigour because I believe some people become successful simply by ability and merit.

Interesting fact;  as a Sgt a few decades ago, with a few other white male Sgts next to me, we were called “you fuckin white boys” by a FN MWO.

It would never cross my mind to call a group of people anything like that.  Ever.   Not then, not when I joined in ‘89, not now.

Equal, fair treatment of all. Respect the dignity of all.  I have not been perfect at this, I likely never will be.  I will try to better myself and my subs and advise my Skipper if needed at every chance I can, though.

This is the way forward.

Last point:

If the CPO find out the Jnr ranks aren’t happy with their concerns etc being addressed, they need to have a long discussion with their Sgts/PO2s.  That is how you fix the CoC issues.  Our current Snr NCO Corps (and Warrant/Petty Officer Corps, as well) generally have less experience and confidence to navigate the current climate.  The Petty/Warrant officers need to become more engaged to
mentor and develop their subs who will eventually be their replacements.

The solution isn’t a command MS, who will become a political figure and “elevated” beyond their rank and ladder wrung.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> If the system is set up such that cishet white men are more likely to end up in positions of power than people who aren't cishet white men, then yes, the system is itself inherently discriminatory.
> 
> If all groups were "treated fairly", then we'd get people in all groups having equal shots at attaining such positions, with representation at all levels proportional to the size of their demographic group.
> 
> Since we're not, it's clear that the system needs to change in order to fix this glaring and outrageous problem.


Ok, this is getting heated.

@Eye In The Sky - I re-read @btrudy 's comments and honestly, they don't advocate firing anyone.  

However, from that picture, who's to say that they weren't in a Teams, etc call with folks elsewhere, who could have been minorities?  Are they supposed to have cardboard cutouts of their heads, or bad Photoshop to say they're there?

@btrudy - I was with you until the quote above.  Could it be that cishet white men (of which I am not) are more likely to end up in positions of power because the military has a much higher proportion of them?  Or that cishet white men may consider staying for a longer career than women, visible minorities, or LGBTQ folks?  I don't have exact stats for that last point, but I pulled up a stat below:



> As of 2020, an evaluation on diversity and inclusion by DND noted that the CAF is made up of *16% of women, 2.8% of Indigenous peoples, and 9.4% of visible minorities*



Disclaimer:  I am a visible minority, so this is very applicable to my situation.  This is also why I feel as strongly about this the way I do.

Assuming that cishet white men end up staying for a longer career and thus are more likely to gain seniority, how do you know that people in those other groups are not getting equal shots?  If there are 10 candidates for X position, and 8 of them are already cishet white men (just extrapolating/estimating from the stats above), is it really that surprising that it's more likely that X position will be filled by a cishet white man?  Is it considered racist/sexist/etc?  No - it's just probabilities.

The other option is to keep a "quota" of positions for those minorities.  We know how well that looked when there was an article a few years about that in recruiting.

So, is there an "old boys club" in the CAF?  Sure there is.  

Is that club focused on keeping women and minorities out of Gucci positions?  From my experience, no, it is not.  

In fact (and I am not a senior officer or anything), the CAF has not given a crap what colour skin I was in terms of postings, education opportunities, etc.  There might have been some racist things said about me in the past, but they _damn sure_ didn't say it to my face.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Ok, this is getting heated.
> 
> @Eye In The Sky - I re-read @btrudy 's comments and honestly, they don't advocate firing anyone.
> 
> ...



There will be those here that have more experience with the US military than I, alot more, but it always struck me that they were far more diverse than we were.

For example, a buddy of mine was a USMC Officer, a tank guy, and he nick named his tank 'United Nations'. He was the only white person in the crew, and the rest were from various parts of Central/South America, Africa etc.

It strikes me that we might learn alot about how to do this diversity thing well from Uncle Sam.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> It strikes me that we might learn alot about how to do this diversity thing well from Uncle Sam.


Here's some stats from 2020.

I'd guess that the whole "Tricare medical/dental" would convince some lower-income folks (which are more likely to be minorities or women) to join up.  

Also, I could be wrong but the US allows Permanent Residents to join, more so than we do.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Here's some stats from 2020.
> 
> I'd guess that the whole "Tricare medical/dental" would convince some lower-income folks (which are more likely to be minorities or women) to join up.
> 
> *Also, I could be wrong but the US allows Permanent Residents to join, more so than we do.*



I believe that military service is a widely recognized pathway to US citizenship too. The 'GI Bill' is a big draw as well, especially for people who can't afford to go to University. But these are just hunches from my POV.

Anyways, it might be useful to do some kind of comparative analysis with a view to informing policy changes at our end, if it hasn't already been done.

Otherwise you wind up stuck in endless emotionally charged debates that solve no-one's issues, apart from professional pessimists like me


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> And it's an "old" pic, being from last year. I dunno about you, but I rather doubt we've fixed all of the department's problems in the last 15 months. I'm not convinced we've fixed any of them to be honest.



Today’s picture discussing diversity, inclusiveness and equity would have a female 3-star combat arms general at the head of the table.   Enough to convince you? 🤔 



btrudy said:


> If the system is set up such that cishet white men are more likely to end up in positions of power than people who aren't cishet white men, then yes, the system is itself inherently discriminatory.


 
Historically, fair to say it WAS, but the case can be made that the system is changing…a sign being that noted above about there being increasing numbers of higher-ranking female GOs (FOs still lagging…but…Navy)

Many don’t factor that, short of firing all the white CIS-hetero male senior officers (which would be against both the Canadian Charter’s principles and the CAF’s moral and ethical fair treatment conduct guidelines), time is required to see the change happen.  How long will it take?  Depends on the target candidates to replace the old white CIS-het males are being considered…senior officers? Probably 2-6 years to see 1-2 star female and non-white/het male GOs.  Junior officers?  8-10 years to see them as GOFOs.


btrudy said:


> If all groups were "treated fairly", then we'd get people in all groups having equal shots at attaining such positions, with representation at all levels proportional to the size of their demographic group.


 
 Would/will.  And it will happen. Just not going to happen next week.



btrudy said:


> Since we're not, it's clear that the system needs to change in order to fix this glaring and outrageous problem.


 
 The system is changing.  Show me where females and non-white/non-CIS males are being actively discriminated against today, and te leased from the forces and I’ll concede your point that the system isn’t changing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I can understand being dismayed at this; sure the Chiefs have supposed to be doing this job.
> 
> But, well... can anyone who by definition is a very very long ways away from being a junior ranks member be actually trusted to adequately represent the interests of said junior personnel? I mean, hell, can they be trusted to even properly _understand _the interests of the average junior ranks member?
> 
> ...


I do enjoy how Edmundson and Coates are at the back of the photo.  😄


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Honestly? Unionization. If you want one thing we could do that would be the most effective at changing the way we do business for the better, it's a unionized Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Direct bargaining by actual representatives selected by the people that they're representing, rather than relying upon the "goodwill" of some generals or admirals very occasionally seeking feedback from junior personnel and even more rarely taking action based upon that feedback.



After the past few years and some personal observations, I agree with this.  I used to be in the "no way should the CAF unionize" camp but I've been brought around to the idea because Upper Management has shown they can't be trusted to advocate on behalf of their subordinates.

Also, we need someone/anyone to protect the troops from all the vultures that sit in Parliament.  😎


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Could it be that cishet white men (of which I am not) are more likely to end up in positions of power because the military has a much higher proportion of them?



Eh, if we're hiring more of them than their actual demographic portion of the population as a whole, then that's also a part of the problem to be fixed.



dimsum said:


> Or that cishet white men may consider staying for a longer career than women, visible minorities, or LGBTQ folks?



And if cishet white men consider staying for a longer career than women, visible minorities, LGBTQ folks etc, then there's a reason for that. Something's making the prospect of continued employment in the CAF more attractive to cishet white men than it is to people who don't fit that mold.

That thing of course would be an aspect of systemic discrimination. When one type of people "fit in", while people who aren't part of that demographic group are more likely to find continued service in the CAF intolerable, the fact that the group who hasn't had to put up with a whole lot of shit due to their gender, sexuality, ethnic or racial background is willing to stick around does also again inherently mean that they didn't "fairly" earn their positions.



dimsum said:


> I don't have exact stats for that last point, but I pulled up a stat below:
> 
> 
> 
> > As of 2020, an evaluation on diversity and inclusion by DND noted that the CAF is made up of *16% of women, 2.8% of Indigenous peoples, and 9.4% of visible minorities*



I mean, yes. That's a major part of the problem. People who aren't cishet white men aren't comfortable even joining. And then when they do join, they're more likely to be driven out by the way they're treated, and less likely to be promoted.



dimsum said:


> Is that club focused on keeping women and minorities out of Gucci positions?  From my experience, no, it is not.
> 
> In fact (and I am not a senior officer or anything), the CAF has not given a crap what colour skin I was in terms of postings, education opportunities, etc.  There might have been some racist things said about me in the past, but they _damn sure_ didn't say it to my face.



I'll be _optimistic_ here and say that, yeah, sure, perhaps that's not the_ intended effect _of the old boys club (or at least not for all members).

But it is absolutely one of the actual effects of the old boys club. And thus the old boys club needs to be demolished.

As for not saying the racist things to your face... I mean, is that _that much better _than instead just letting their racist tendencies guide their decision making processes which affected your career, and slagging you to others behind your back, changing their perception of you as well?



Good2Golf said:


> Today’s picture discussing diversity, inclusiveness and equity would have a female 3-star combat arms general at the head of the table.   Enough to convince you? 🤔



Well, no, but it's a start. One positive example doesn't mean the problem is solved. Even with that one 3 star, women are still grossly underrepresented.



Good2Golf said:


> The system is changing.  Show me where females and non-white/non-CIS males are being actively discriminated against today, and te leased from the forces and I’ll concede your point that the system isn’t changing.



Here's one example, and I'd like to be clear that this is an example of a black woman at a unit that is actually trying fairly hard to make things more inclusive, at least from an official policy standpoint. But regardless of policy, she's still facing discrimination and she's still simply finding being a black woman in the CAF to be a lot more difficult than their white male counterparts are, solely because of the fact that she's a black woman.



> A message from OCdt Anna Sekyewa for Black History Month:
> “My parents used to send me to summer camp and I was usually the darkest kid there. While I got used to being different, it doesn't really get easier. Some days at the College I feel like any other Cadet, when I’m surrounded by my flight and my friends. But there are days where I’ve been made to feel alien. When my name is mispronounced, and I get invasive questions about my hair, I just want to go home.
> It's hard to be one of 20 Black students on campus, and it's disheartening to see that the racial and gender makeup of our top Brass has not changed much in the last century. If Black, Indigenous, and people of color don’t have a seat at the table, the diversity and inclusion initiatives mean nothing.
> Despite this, I am glad I came to the College. After I ran the Obstacle Course, I felt a part of something bigger than myself. During Black History Month, I take time to consider how far the CAF has come, but I recognize that we have a long way to go.”


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

My opinion on the chief positions has always been, and it goes for any SM position too- including the RCMP, 

It’s their job to speak truth to power- they are in the unique position to speak up and down the chain honestly. They lost their way when they started viewing themselves as “the power” rather than a unique experienced link That could speak on behalf of the most junior member to the highest level.

now they’re more concerned with being relevant.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Booter said:


> My opinion on the chief positions has always been, and it goes for any SM position too- including the RCMP,
> 
> It’s their job to speak truth to power- they are in the unique position to speak up and down the chain honestly. They lost their way when they started viewing themselves as “the power” rather than a unique experienced link That could speak on behalf of the most junior member to the highest level.
> 
> now they’re more concerned with being relevant.



The problem being is that they didn't get into those positions by speaking truth to power as they were climbing the ranks. And folks who start speaking truth to power as a Cpl / PO (or Capt / Maj level while we're at it)... tend to just stay there. We select for promotion people who can "get things done" or who are "team players". We don't tend to select those who go out of their way to tell their bosses why they're wrong.

And once people have climbed to those lofty heights, they're not going to change the habits that got them there.


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> The problem being is that they didn't get into those positions by speaking truth to power as they were climbing the ranks. And folks who start speaking truth to power as a Cpl / PO (or Capt / Maj level while we're at it)... tend to just stay there. We select for promotion people who can "get things done" or who are "team players". We don't tend to select those who go out of their way to tell their bosses why they're wrong.
> 
> And once people have climbed to those lofty heights, they're not going to change the habits that got them there.


I really really agree with this.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> The problem being is that they didn't get into those positions by speaking truth to power as they were climbing the ranks. And folks who start speaking truth to power as a Cpl / PO (or Capt / Maj level while we're at it)... tend to just stay there. We select for promotion people who can "get things done" or who are "team players". We don't tend to select those who go out of their way to tell their bosses why they're wrong.
> 
> And once people have climbed to those lofty heights, they're not going to change the habits that got them there.


It's the Military adoption of a Corporate Culture without the checks and balances provided.

No shareholder voting rights, no board of directors, no consequences for failure.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Well, no, but it's a start. One positive example doesn't mean the problem is solved. Even with that one 3 star, women are still grossly underrepresented.


Not that I was directly setting a trap, by any means, but the fact that you just took my one example of a 3-star, LGen Jennie Carignan and went on to rail that just ‘one 3 star’ doesn’t convince you there’s change afoot, brings an ignorance on your part, perhaps not intended, but ignorant nonetheless, of the situation. 

You know there’s another recently appointed 3 star female general, right?  Heck, she’s even 2IC of the CAF…but I get it, nothing for the foreseeable future will make you happy. 

Carry on disparaging the changes made towards the desired demographic goals as insincere and lacking.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

My dude, I'm not disputing that there's "change afoot". 

But we've still got a hell of a ways to go, and we've got to fight against folks like Eye in the Sky who seem dead set against the implementation of anything that might knock white men off their current unfairly granted positions of privilege. Because god forbid we be "unfair" to the people who have and continue to benefit from an unfair advantage. 

There have been changes, but they're sure as shit thus far inadequate to actually address the problem. And I will definitely continue "disparaging" that fact, until it's no longer the case. 




Good2Golf said:


> Not that I was directly setting a trap, by any means, but the fact that you just took my one example of a 3-star, LGen Jennie Carignan and went on to rail that just ‘one 3 star’ doesn’t convince you there’s change afoot, brings an ignorance on your part, perhaps not intended, but ignorant nonetheless, of the situation.
> 
> You know there’s another recently appointed 3 star female general, right?  Heck, she’s even 2IC of the CAF…but I get it, nothing for the foreseeable future will make you happy.



This isn't the gotcha you think it might be IMHO. Two in the room is sure better than one, but it's still not even close to equitable, and that's leaving beside the lack of equity for other demographic groups.


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

btrudy, if it is wrong for those old white guys to be in those positions unfairly- if a race or gender or something is only, hypothetically like 2.4% of the membership- why should they at the management level be more represented than that.

Would we not be creating a different error by over-representing someone else- who didn’t “compete” with the larger pool because we kept putting them forward- despite their small population.

I know this isn’t what happening- but it’s kinda the suggested solution in a very oversimplified way.

I only ask because you seem to spend a lot of time on this subject- and it’s something I’m an outsider on.

What benefit do I get- in a war fighting- or even an efficiency standpoint- beyond a diversity benefit. (Which has its own benefits and shouldn’t be discounted)

I hope this question makes sense, any links or a book you would suggest as required reading?


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

I suppose what it is- the diversity issue, makes sense from a nation building, humint, CIMIC, kinda standpoint, (on top of being good human beings)

But to get to that point I have to be good at war. How does this make us better at the tactical/operational sphere before the diversity dividend. In my head the fighting part has primacy and the follow on is important but it’s tier 2 considerations.

In my ignorance, these conversations always seem like the desired way to make us good employers. But not good at the reason for existence- making us a public service extension or an outreach program- rather than a very specific goal oriented organization.

And I already know these concepts aren’t  exclusive- like it’s not true you can only do one at the cost of the other. But it feels dishonest to suggest that we don’t pursue one more aggressively than the other.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Booter said:


> btrudy, if it is wrong for those old white guys to be in those positions unfairly- if a race or gender or something is only, hypothetically like 2.4% of the membership- why should they at the management level be more represented than that.



It's unethical to simply accept that acceptable representation by various demographic groups at "leadership" levels should be represented based upon the demographics of the organization as a whole, when systemic discrimination drives certain types of people to either leave the organization early or not join in the first place, while others "fit right in". 

You can't use the bigotry inherent in the system to justify the bigotry inherent in the system. 



Booter said:


> What benefit do I get- in a war fighting- or even an efficiency standpoint- beyond a diversity benefit. (Which has its own benefits and shouldn’t be discounted)
> 
> I hope this question makes sense, any links or a book you would suggest as required reading?



Well, ultimately, our recruiting pool opens up a heck of a lot if we get to a point where all folks are just as likely to feel welcome in the CAF and succeed when they apply. We won't be wasting money on training people who end up getting out due to racism or sexism or whatnot. 

When we can fully leverage all segments of the Canadian society in an equal fashion, then we can be more effective and efficient in generating and using combat capability. 

As well, there's the fact that having a broad range of people can provide insight to difficult cultures, which is rather useful when we're operating abroad. 

But frankly, I consider most of that to be 2ndary to the fact that it's a moral imperative to eliminate discrimination. We do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because we expect it to benefit us.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2022)

Frankly I like to see us piggyback onto the British Gurkha system, that would provide us with a easily filled battalion of infantry. It would also be a pathway for citizenship for them and their families. So we get to increase our military footprint and help solve the immigration issue. I have met a number of Gurkha and would be happy to have them as neighbours. Of course this government won't go for it as it increases the military and provides a pathway for the wrong sort of immigrant (Not rich, not big on victimhood and less likely to vote Liberal)


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

@btrudy when you say systemic racism- what are you referring to. What systemic barrier exists to keep an indigenous person just outside Edmonton from joining?

Or 2nd generation Canadians from the lower mainland? Or Toronto?

I think there are lots of image issues. There may even be actual racism in some places. But specific systemic barriers?

I have a collection of friends from varied backgrounds that I served with that don’t feel that way- they did however have families that were angry with them for throwing their lives away in the CF and the RCMP.

Of course they could just be avoiding telling me the truth. Which is a different thing entirely.

I once did some work for a fairly long period with a local Population that didn’t speak English. We recruited as much as we could from local populations etc to try and get a friendly understanding of culture and to have some appearance of cooperation- the need for cooperation was genuine but the appearance was one necessary aspect to getting it.

What we found was that the educated or power holding groups avoided our attempts and we wound up recruiting the lower power individuals. Which caused us a new set of headaches. The higher power community structures wouldn’t cooperate with those people.

So even though we would have to work through interpreters and have incredibly cumbersome interactions- they would only deal with “whites”. Which caused me to have to go alllllll the way back to the drawing board on getting local cooperation.

The danger of anecdote is that you make something in a microcosm into some kindve universal rule-  but it’s in the back
Of my head.

I am aware of lots of systemic issues in government in general- but it may be surprising but I find the CAF to have LESS of these particular barriers (I’m aware of)

There are government agencies and functions that have better representation- but is it possible that it’s because the jobs are better overall?

Many years ago, there was a federal job that carried guns that had its very first trans person trying to work (I’m sure there were others before they just didn’t fall in near clean categories). There was a line of thinking in the health clearance that a person having under gone full surgeries etc wasn’t psychologically fit to do the work on the tactical side. There was a great deal of back and forth as this person blazed a trail just by virtue of being “first” Not because they were some person who desired this attention.

I was brought in to deal with an assessment of their ability. Just tactical side. No assessments of their fitness or psych etc.

It was a bizarre situation that everyone struggled with and I wound up advocating openly and behind scenes for that person- but it was an eye opener of the level Of resistance in systems for changes. The CAF at the time had considerably higher cooperation with trans issues than this agency.

The same thing for a disabled person I had to assist in a different agency.

In a lot of the cases I actually used the CF as a touchstone for precedent.

Anyways I don’t always accept your points in your posts but they do
Cause me to pause quite often. So thanks.

Man that NWO device…this thread took
Hard right😅


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> But frankly, I consider most of that to be 2ndary to the fact that it's a moral imperative to eliminate discrimination. We do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because we expect it to benefit us.


I think the CF has a morale obligation to fulfill its reason for existence. However, It is imperative that we stomp out discrimination-  I support Canada because it’s free Place with liberty.

That should be the case for all
People who live here. No just the ones we resemble.

But in your first paragraph you mention driving people out- is there any information that we are losing more of our targeted or minority groups than we are white boys from a career perspective? Or are we just bleeding people because of shitty leadership in a general Sense. (Or some Other non-discrimination based reason)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 May 2022)

Booter said:


> @btrudy when you say systemic racism- what are you referring to. What systemic barrier exists to keep an indigenous person just outside Edmonton from joining?
> 
> Or 2nd generation Canadians from the lower mainland? Or Toronto?
> 
> ...



Minorities don't have a monopoly on this.  Bet a majority of Canadians think the same thing, regardless of gender/sexual orientation, race, etc.


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Minorities don't have a monopoly on this.  Bet a majority of Canadians think the same thing, regardless of gender/sexual orientation, race, etc.


I come from dirt poor folks. It was like I was voted prime minister when I joined the military my family was so excited. So I’m always curious to hear the other side


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 May 2022)

Booter said:


> I come from dirt poor folks. It was like I was voted prime minister when I joined the military my family was so excited.


My Father's family (from Rural NB), incredibly proud.  History of Military Service in the family.

My Mother's family (from the Anglo-Quebec Aristocracy/Old Rothesay NB Money), immensely disappointed.

"My grandson is throwing his life away!  He should be aspiring to be a Doctor, Lawyer or CEO!" Is what my grandfather said.  

😄


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Booter said:


> But in your first paragraph you mention driving people out- is there any information that we are losing more of our targeted or minority groups than we are white boys from a career perspective? Or are we just bleeding people because of shitty leadership in a general Sense. (Or some Other non-discrimination based reason)





> Retention​High retention rates can be an indicator of positive general morale and contribute to operational effectiveness. DND/CAF statistics demonstrate that Indigenous Peoples, visible minorities, women and persons with disabilities have much lower retention rates than white men. As a result, there are fewer individuals from these groups who reach higher rank levels or leadership positions.
> 
> In the CAF, the disparity becomes pronounced from the Sergeant and Lieutenant levels onwards. The disparity also exists at the Executive level of the National Defence civilian employee population. Again, data to compare representation of Employment Equity group members at lower-level civilian positions was not available to the Advisory Panel in time for this report.
> 
> It is important to understand that these observations do not diminish the value and contributions of white men within DND/CAF. Rather, they serve to signal that barriers are preventing all groups from equally thriving within the Defence Team. By the same token, they outline an opportunity to improve the demographic representation within the Defence Team.


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

So the data is there- I just read through. Where are the reasons they are leaving?

(Also thanks for the link)


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Honestly? Unionization. If you want one thing we could do that would be the most effective at changing the way we do business for the better, it's a unionized Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Direct bargaining by actual representatives selected by the people that they're representing, rather than relying upon the "goodwill" of some generals or admirals very occasionally seeking feedback from junior personnel and even more rarely taking action based upon that feedback.


Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

Booter said:


> I come from dirt poor folks. It was like I was voted prime minister when I joined the military my family was so excited. So I’m always curious to hear the other side


I hear you brother. I was in the same boat.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.



You can vote with your feet if you disagree with the decision of a majority of your coworkers to form a union for the purposes of collective bargaining.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> No, I'm not suggesting we fire them all



This is a very different statement than: 

“I’m not suggesting we fire any of them”

Anyone who is in the CAF who doesn’t chose their words carefully can expect to find themselves challenged on this topic.   And so they should be. 

Imagine if I or anyone made the same post but replace the word “white” with “First Nations”. 

Acceptable?



btrudy said:


> But at the very least they shouldn't be having any discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion when _there's only old white men in the room_



More of the same.  So, white people can’t have meaningful, productive conversations on change?  What is more important; PC photo ops or engaged leadership with an honest desire to “leave it better than they found it”. 

Respect the dignity of all.  Full stop.

Heated?  Not for me.  I simply believe the way forward includes stamping out this “white guy” racist bullshit.  It’s racist and that needs to go;  all of it and anyone who speaks it.  Out. Gone.  One way door.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.


Luckily, 80% of the CAF will never see a trench in anger.  This attitude, of voting with our feet, is a big reason why we’re in this precarious staffing position.  The CAF is so big it needs a forcing function to change how it treats people. So far, feet voting hasn’t been a strong enough motivator to get things changed.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.


Officers (aka Management) wouldn't be part of the Union 😎 just NCOs.



SupersonicMax said:


> Luckily, 80% of the CAF will never see a trench in anger.  This attitude, of voting with our feet, is a big reason why we’re in this precarious staffing position.  The CAF is so big it needs a forcing function to change how it treats people. So far, feet voting hasn’t been a strong enough motivator to get things changed.


More like 95%, most probably haven't even dug one 😄


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> This is a very different statement than:
> 
> “I’m not suggesting we fire any of them”
> 
> Anyone who is in the CAF who doesn’t chose their words carefully can expect to find themselves challenged on this topic.   And so they should be.



Dude you need to learn to understand context. The post I was replying to was asking if I was suggesting firing them because they're old and white. I said no. That's it that's all. 



Eye In The Sky said:


> More of the same.  So, white people can’t have meaningful, productive conversations on change?



Honestly? No. Talking about change without involving the people who the change is supposed to benefit is not productive. You're supposed to involve stakeholders. 



Eye In The Sky said:


> What is more important; PC photo ops or engaged leadership with an honest desire to “leave it better than they found it”.



Or maybe, just maybe, it's not a binary choice between "do nothing productive but take a photo" and "don't bother to engage with members of the target demographic". 

You know... like my suggestion that they seek out and actually listen to members of the affected communities. 



Eye In The Sky said:


> Heated?  Not for me.  I simply believe the way forward includes stamping out this “white guy” racist bullshit.  It’s racist and that needs to go;  all of it and anyone who speaks it.  Out. Gone.  One way door.



I'll tell you what; I'll stop when white people in positions of power stop doing things which reinforce structural discrimination.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Officers (aka Management) wouldn't be part of the Union 😎 just NCOs.



Naw, if we follow the same model as every other union, everyone under the EX level would be eligible to be part of a union. That kicks in at an equivalent of what, LCol? Col? One of the two.

Edit: Pretty sure it's Col, since that's the cut off for "gets a raise when the public servants negotiate one" versus "gets a raise when the EX-1 and above get one".


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> I hear you brother. I was in the same boat.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> My dude, I'm not disputing that there's "change afoot".
> 
> But we've still got a hell of a ways to go, and we've got to fight against folks like Eye in the Sky who seem dead set against the implementation of anything that might knock white men off their current unfairly granted positions of privilege. Because god forbid we be "unfair" to the people who have and continue to benefit from an unfair advantage.



Fight against me.  Yes I am the boogey man:

- my position is based on Human Rights Act, Charter and Defense Ethics policy or law.

Summed up it is:  you can’t discriminate against any one person or group because of their colour/age/gender.

You openly opine that old white men should be disadvantaged, are somehow incapable of change or advocating for changes and are skill-deprived and addle brained and advance because they are white.  You refer to them, quite happily, in a racist-leaning phrase.

I am quite happy with my position on this one.  Respect the dignity of all.


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Luckily, 80% of the CAF will never see a trench in anger.  This attitude, of voting with our feet, is a big reason why we’re in this precarious staffing position.  The CAF is so big it needs a forcing function to change how it treats people. So far, feet voting hasn’t been a strong enough motivator to get things changed.


Stop. But why do we exist then? We are the CAF. We will have some folks who see a trench in anger and, rightfully,  fight to defend it, I will concur. If you can't see that, get the phuque out, good riddance. If we are not capable of doing that, then get used to speaking a foreign language.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Fight against me.  Yes I am the boogey man:
> 
> - my position is based on Human Rights Act, Charter and Defense Ethics policy or law.
> 
> Summed up it is:  you can’t discriminate against any one person or group because of their colour/age/gender.



No, but you can put into place measures to correct for discrimination against disadvantageous groups.

And people who are currently privileged might view that as discrimination against them. They'd be wrong, it's just fixing the fact that they've got a leg up.

Again, this is why your habit of just posting screenshots is terrible. You need to actually read the entire act.

For example, when you posted the screenshot from the Canadian Human Rights Act, you stopped at section 7. You didn't bother to keep going until you got to section 16, which reads.

*16* (1) It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.
The entire point of such legislation is to allow us to fix discrimination, not to make it impossible to make progress because that might knock currently unfairly advantaged groups off their pedestal.



Eye In The Sky said:


> You openly opine that old white men should be disadvantaged, are somehow incapable of change or advocating for changes and are skill-deprived and addle brained and advance because they are white.  You refer to them, quite happily, in a racist-leaning phrase.
> 
> I am quite happy with my position on this one.  Respect the dignity of all.



I opine that members of a privileged class are, due to the fact that they do not experience the impact of not being a member of said class, are blind to the realities that affect everyone else.

When you don't see or experience hardship, how the heck are you supposed to honestly fix said hardship? This isn't some bloody logic puzzle.

Failure to adequately consult with people who do actually have to live with said discrimination will only result in reinforcing said discrimination. You can't fix a problem if you don't bother consulting with people who actually know what the problem is.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2022)

Simple solution.  Just cap white male promotions  above a certain % quota at each rank level…then the system will move more quickly towards employment equitable distribution.  It may take several years, but it will be a clear improvement to how things work today.


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> No, but you can put into place measures to correct for discrimination against disadvantageous groups.
> 
> And people who are currently privileged might view that as discrimination against them. They'd be wrong, it's just fixing the fact that they've got a leg up.
> 
> ...


Sigh................ so older white males are the problem......................... I have a solution,,,,,,,,,,,,,kill them all.(Me included) When that doesn't work, find another stupid solution to the non-existential quandary that you and others have contrived. First world problems............reflect on that.


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Sigh................ so older white males are the problem......................... I have a solution,,,,,,,,,,,,,kill them all.(Me included) When that doesn't work, find another stupid solution to the non-existential quandary that you and others have contrived. First world problems............reflect on that.


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> No, but you can put into place measures to correct for discrimination against disadvantageous groups.
> 
> And people who are currently privileged might view that as discrimination against them. They'd be wrong, it's just fixing the fact that they've got a leg up.
> 
> ...


Your opine is full of shyte.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Sigh................ so older white males are the problem......................... I have a solution,,,,,,,,,,,,,kill them all.(Me included) When that doesn't work, find another stupid solution to the non-existential quandary that you and others have contrived. First world problems............reflect on that.



Look, I get it. You don't care about the problem because it doesn't affect you. And you resort to mockery of people who do care. 

Sure as heck says a lot about you and your moral compass, or lack thereof, but you do you I guess.


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Look, I get it. You don't care about the problem because it doesn't affect you. And you resort to mockery of people who do care.
> 
> Sure as heck says a lot about you and your moral compass, or lack thereof, but you do you I guess.


You don't know me, and how the heck you could gauge my moral compass is laughable, if not a reflection on you. But you do you. Grandstand.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> [*]*16* (1) It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.



Under section 16 you could legally stop promoting white men, stop hiring white men, and give white men the worst postings over an under represented group.

Call it a special military operation program.


*removed a line


----------



## Haggis (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Naw, if we follow the same model as every other union, everyone under the EX level would be eligible to be part of a union. That kicks in at an equivalent of what, LCol? Col? One of the two.


Our union excludes everyone in positions equal to or higher than Pl Comd equivalent.

Our union is also highly selective and discriminatory in who they represent during collective bargaining.  My specialty group is very small (roughly 200 out of 8,000).  Over the last three rounds of collective bargaining we have submitted specialty specific demands, some of which would have benefitted the 8,000, which the union has rejected saying we "weren't worth the effort".  Would a CAF union treat SAR techs, Ammo techs, Met Techs and other small MOSIDS thee way our union treats us?  Maybe not at first....


----------



## ArmyRick (28 May 2022)

@btrudy zero respect for your comments, zero respect for your mentality. 

EVERYONE should be judged based on their performance. FULL STOP. When I joined the PPCLI in the early 90s, at battleschool, we had an old black OC and an old black sergeant major. WTF does that tell you? Maybe the CAF had advancement for the "non-whites" for like forever. 

Your attitude is neither helpful nor wanted.


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Sigh................ so older white males are the problem......................... I have a solution,,,,,,,,,,,,,kill them all.(Me included) When that doesn't work, find another stupid solution to the non-existential quandary that you and others have contrived. First world problems............reflect on that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2022)

> If the system is set up such that cishet white men are more likely to end up in positions of power than people who aren't cishet white men, then yes, the system is itself inherently discriminatory.



Stop presenting one possible factor as the only factor.  The most influential reason for the "face" of any work force is the desire of people to do that kind of work.


----------



## Booter (28 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Under section 16 you could legally stop promoting white men, stop hiring white men, and give white men the worst postings over an under represented group.
> 
> Call it a special military operation program.
> 
> ...


These types of initiatives are already out there in the wild elsewhere. Not as a like system wise practice- but that section is in use lots of places.

In the ways I’ve seen it used it’s not really a big deal but it’s definitely put some people in a corner.


----------



## Remius (28 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Stop presenting one possible factor as the only factor.  The most influential reason for the "face" of any work force is the desire of people to do that kind of work.


This is exactly it.


----------



## MH2022 (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.


People have been voting with their feet, early 2000s CAF RegF was at about 85000 pers, now we're projected to be under 65000 a loss of around 20000 pers in 20ish years,. Another 40 years and there ain't gonna be nothing but a bunch of GoFos commanding units of nothing but empty positions. The CAF needs to evolve or it'll die out.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Stop presenting one possible factor as the only factor.  The most influential reason for the "face" of any work force is the desire of people to do that kind of work.



And ask yourself why it is that some people might not want to work in an organization with well publicized racism and sexism issues, or why women, racial or ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks who do want to join are more likely to end up leaving earlier than their cishet white male counterparts.

What factors are influencing the differences there in that "desire of people to do that kind of work"?



TheMattHan said:


> People have been voting with their feet, early 2000s CAF RegF was at about 85000 pers, now we're projected to be under 65000 a loss of around 20000 pers in 20ish years,. Another 40 years and there ain't gonna be nothing but a bunch of GoFos commanding units of nothing but empty positions. The CAF needs to evolve or it'll die out.



Exactly. As it is, we're to a large degree acting as a giant subsidization for other employers. We'll take people in, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to train them up, and then give them a shitty work environment, move them around to places with massive COLs without actually adjusting for that, and then act all shocked when they leave to work for folks who'll pay them and treat them better.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> You can vote with your feet if you disagree with the decision of a majority of your coworkers to form a union for the purposes of collective bargaining.


I'm not disagreeing, but I would actually like a survey of the percentage in the CAF who would really want that. 

_but_

Only if they also understand what a union means, including the union dues, responsibilities, etc.  I've never been in a union job, so all I know is from 3rd hand information.

My civilian friends who are in union jobs are either pro (if they're in the union itself) or anti (they feel their union doesn't do squat).  So...I'm conflicted.




btrudy said:


> Exactly. As it is, we're to a large degree acting as a giant subsidization for other employers.


I would also like to see the stats on the percentage of folks who went 20-25 years in the "good old days" vice the folks who left for other jobs.  

I suspect that percentage is not as high as people think.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> And ask yourself why it is that some people might not want to work in an organization with well publicized racism and sexism issues, or why women, racial or ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks who do want to join are more likely to end up leaving earlier than their cishet white male counterparts.
> 
> What factors are influencing the differences there in that "desire of people to do that kind of work"?
> 
> ...




So what???    Get in, learn something, serve your country, get out, and let new young blood learn.

Works for me......


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So what???    Get in, learn something, serve your country, get out, and let new young blood learn.
> 
> Works for me......


I mean, it's great for the person I guess.

Less so for the organization which actually kinda needed to use the skills they taught that person.


----------



## MH2022 (28 May 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So what???    Get in, learn something, serve your country, get out, and let new young blood learn.
> 
> Works for me......


Problem with that is we haven't been getting enough in to replace the ones leaving


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

TheMattHan said:


> People have been voting with their feet, early 2000s CAF RegF was at about 85000 pers, now we're projected to be under 65000 a loss of around 20000 pers in 20ish years,. Another 40 years and there ain't gonna be nothing but a bunch of GoFos commanding units of nothing but empty positions. The CAF needs to evolve or it'll die out





btrudy said:


> *And ask yourself why it is that some people might not want to work in an organization with well publicized racism and sexism issues, or why women, racial or ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks who do want to join are more likely to end up leaving earlier than their cishet white male counterparts.*
> 
> What factors are influencing the differences there in that "desire of people to do that kind of work"?
> 
> ...


sigh.....yes, we are all magnificently evil, and only manifest our evilness when the CAF is not looking, I have spent my 39 plus years in uniform trying to outwit the "man".  

Cishet is not a term that I ascribe to.  I do not care what you follow, but my feelings should matter, apparently they do not.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Bruce Monkhouse said:
> 
> 
> > So what???    Get in, learn something, serve your country, get out, and let new young blood learn.
> ...



So by your logic, if white males are bad for the organization, why is the CAF even still teaching skills to them?  Let them move on from the CAF, as Bruce Monkhouse suggests, and then simply replace them with the proper proportion of demographics of new CAF members — problem solved!


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> sigh.....yes, we are all magnificently evil, and only manifest our evilness when the CAF is not looking, I have spent my 39 plus years in uniform trying to outwit the "man".
> 
> Cishet is not a term that I ascribe to.  I do not care what you follow, but my feelings should matter, apparently they do not.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Stop. But why do we exist then? We are the CAF. We will have some folks who see a trench in anger and, rightfully,  fight to defend it, I will concur. If you can't see that, get the phuque out, good riddance. If we are not capable of doing that, then get used to speaking a foreign language.


Sure, some people do that and that’s important work. But it’s not the only important work.

Not sure if you’re saying that if I can’t dig a trench and defend it I should get out but I never dug a trench, I have no desire to do and I am pretty sure I never will.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 May 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I never dug a trench, I have no desire to do and I am pretty sure I never will.


Good luck digging one big enough for you and your ride 😉


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I mean, it's great for the person I guess.
> 
> Less so for the organization which actually kinda needed to use the skills they taught that person.


No.....its actually good for the organization.   When the bubble bursts someday the most important folks we'll have are the ready to go instructors.  

As far as the other kife in this thread, om with EITS, treat everyone with respect and dignity and creame, whatever face/orientation it has, will rise to the top eventually.   

And like many good folk I know, everyone will know they EARNED it.


----------



## MH2022 (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> sigh.....yes, we are all magnificently evil, and only manifest our evilness when the CAF is not looking, I have spent my 39 plus years in uniform trying to outwit the "man".
> 
> Cishet is not a term that I ascribe to.  I do not care what you follow, but my feelings should matter, apparently they do not.


Not saying you're evil, the facts say we're losing people. We need to find ways to keep what we have left, if that means a union let's do it. But right now the troops are leaving in droves. This whole site will spends months debating the ideal amount of c6s in a platoon but none of that matters if in 10 years there ain't anyone left to man them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2022)

> And ask yourself why it is that some people might not want to work in an organization with well publicized racism and sexism issues, or why women, racial or ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks who do want to join are more likely to end up leaving earlier than their cishet white male counterparts.



Probably the same reason not many of them are deck crew on halibut boats.  Sometimes the work is hard and out-of-doors.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2022)

TheMattHan said:


> But right now the troops are leaving in droves.


 
So long as it’s white males leaving, that’s okay.  



TheMattHan said:


> This whole site will spends months debating the ideal amount of c6s in a platoon but none of that matters if in 10 years there ain't anyone left to man operate them.


Your paragraph didn’t pass GBA+


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2022)

> We'll take people in, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to train them up, and then give them a shitty work environment, move them around to places with massive COLs without actually adjusting for that, and then act all shocked when they leave to work for folks who'll pay them and treat them better.



I doubt privatization of military training is going to pass muster, so the go-to-school-then-join-the-forces model is out.  I doubt tracking "tuition and education cost" and forgiving 5% of it each year (nothing owed if you serve 20+) would work out either.


----------



## Weinie (28 May 2022)

TheMattHan said:


> Not saying you're evil, the facts say we're losing people. We need to find ways to keep what we have left, if that means a union let's do it. But right now the troops are leaving in droves. T*his whole site will spends months debating the ideal amount of c6s in a platoon but none of that matters if in 10 years there ain't anyone left to man them*


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Weinie said:


> Cishet is not a term that I ascribe to.  I do not care what you follow, but my feelings should matter, apparently they do not.



If you're trans or enbie or agender or anything other than cis that's fine by me. I don't recall ever specifying what I thought your gender identity was.



Good2Golf said:


> So by your logic, if white males are bad for the organization, why is the CAF even still teaching skills to them?  Let them move on from the CAF, as Bruce Monkhouse suggests, and then simply replace them with the proper proportion of demographics of new CAF members — problem solved!



I don't think white males are bad for the organization. I think allowing white males to disproportionately occupy positions of power is. I think policies which lead to such an outcome are bad for the organization.

Having white males is fine, as long as they're not given an unfair advantage over everyone else.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I think it's pretty clear that you're not arguing in good faith, but on the off chance you are, lemme explain something.
> 
> The fact that all the senior leadership that was in the room that day was a white male is *a direct result of systemic institutional discrimination built into the CAF's hiring and promotion processes*. Shit like that doesn't just randomly happen. It's not a coincidence. It's bigotry in action.
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that it took 15-20 years for those guys to get to that room. So the changes we made even a decade ago won't show yet. Plus we have been trying to hire a lot of the different groups, but as pointed out by Jordan Peterson, by and large the majority don't have an interest.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't think white males are bad for the organization. I think allowing white males to disproportionately occupy positions of power is. I think policies which lead to such an outcome are bad for the organization.
> 
> Having white males is fine, as long as they're not given an unfair advantage over everyone else.



And I agree with you, the best way to eliminate their unfair advantage is to drastically restrict their progression until such time as the desired demographics of gender and race in the CAF are achieved.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't think white males are bad for the organization. I think allowing white males to disproportionately occupy positions of power is. I think policies which lead to such an outcome are bad for the organization.



Over looking gender for a moment Canada population is approximately 73% European, 18% Asian, 5% Indigenous, 3% Black. If I'm reading that correctly. 

Do you think it's possible that the disproportionately of positions of power can be directly due to the racial proportionality of Canadians as a whole? 

If 3% of Canadians are black and we have 150 generals I can sort of see why we wouldn't have 90 black generals. 

Or am I in left field here.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Over looking gender for a moment Canada population is approximately 73% European, 18% Asian, 5% Indigenous, 3% Black. If I'm reading that correctly.
> 
> Do you think it's possible that the disproportionately of positions of power can be directly due to the racial proportionality of Canadians as a whole?
> 
> ...



Ummm. I think it might just be a misunderstanding. If we have 150 generals and things were allocated proportionally, ~110 of them would be white, ~27 asian, etc etc

It's disproportionate because far more than the "fair share" of 55 are white men.


----------



## MH2022 (28 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> So long as it’s white males leaving, that’s okay.
> 
> 
> Your paragraph didn’t pass GBA+


Seems a bit discriminatory but you're welcome to have your opinions


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Ummm. I think it might just be a misunderstanding. If we have 150 generals and things were allocated proportionally, ~110 of them would be white, ~27 asian, etc etc
> 
> It's disproportionate because far more than the "fair share" of 55 are white men.



I'm not following how that could happen and still be merit-based.

So, for example, how are we going to get the 27 Asian GOFOs?  Do they get selected past their non-Asian peers to fill that quota?  

How would that be anything other than unfair, if it's not purely on merit?  How would said Asian candidates feel, when they know they're selected ahead of peers because there was a percentage requirement?


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2022)

TheMattHan said:


> Seems a bit discriminatory but you're welcome to have your opinions


You’ve done GBA+, right?  Why on earth would you chose to use a gender as a verb when there are much more appropriate words to use?


Edit to add:  Ah, you mean the “so long as it’s white males leaving” part.  Well, you see, anti-discriminatory discrimination is actually allowed by CAF and GoC policy.  btrudy pointed out the relative section earlier in this thread, Part 16 of the Charter. I believe.

Add #2:

This part here:


btrudy said:


> *16* (1) It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2022)

If you want balance, start with immigration policy.  Canada targets people (eg.  highly educated0 who are unlikely to seek military service or to encourage their offspring to do so.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If you want balance, start with immigration policy.  Canada targets people (eg.  highly educated0 who are unlikely to seek military service or to encourage their offspring to do so.


We may have to move to counter-discriminatory conscription.  It may be the only way for the Govermnent to attain the demographic composition they demand.  Again, Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows this.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm not following how that could happen and still be merit-based.
> 
> So, for example, how are we going to get the 27 Asian GOFOs?  Do they get selected past their non-Asian peers to fill that quota?
> 
> How would that be anything other than unfair, if it's not purely on merit?  How would said Asian candidates feel, when they know they're selected ahead of peers because there was a percentage requirement?


What does "selecting" purely on merit look like exactly? 

I mean, we need to keep in mind that we're talking a system which systematically advantages cishet white males when it comes to selecting for promotions. The system is flawed; measurements of merit that we're currently using are inherently biased. Thus it is impossible to say that any selections we are doing are based "purely on merit". 

Adjusting for that wouldn't be selecting for something other than merit. It would be fixing the flaws in the merit measurement system.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> What does "selecting" purely on merit look like exactly?
> 
> I mean, we need to keep in mind that we're talking a system which systematically advantages cishet white males when it comes to selecting for promotions. The system is flawed; measurements of merit that we're currently using are inherently biased. Thus it is impossible to say that any selections we are doing are based "purely on merit".
> 
> Adjusting for that wouldn't be selecting for something other than merit. It would be fixing the flaws in the merit measurement system.


I am not sure this is entirely true.  Can you please tell me why our evaluation system favours white cishet males?


----------



## Remius (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> What does "selecting" purely on merit look like exactly?
> 
> I mean, we need to keep in mind that we're talking a system which systematically advantages cishet white males when it comes to selecting for promotions. The system is flawed; measurements of merit that we're currently using are inherently biased. Thus it is impossible to say that any selections we are doing are based "purely on merit".
> 
> Adjusting for that wouldn't be selecting for something other than merit. It would be fixing the flaws in the merit measurement system.


What is it specifically about the system that favours white men?


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I am not sure this is entirely true.  Can you please tell me why our evaluation system favours white cishet males?


Yeah, I too want to know how our PER/PAR system does that.


----------



## Remius (28 May 2022)

So a few factors to add.  When I joined in the 90s there were still people from the 60s that were in. 

Women in my trade were not numerous.  Many stopped after a few years.  

Let’s go with 6 out of 72 recruits.

Of those 6 none are still around after 25 years or so.  Only 3 of the men are.  Only 1 is black and 2 including myself are white.  Of the 3 only two are succession planned to CWO.  

So after 25 years out of  72 people only 2 will make it to CWO.  Of the 6 women one went officer.  And left to be a police officer.  

My point is that the reason we might have so many white males at the top now is that maybe it’s because we had many more white males joining and staying back in the day. 

If you want change we need more women to join and progress,  But I’m not sure how many really actually want to join in comparison to other jobs.  It’s a numbers game,  if women are not attracted to traditional military jobs is that more about the job or the gender?


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 May 2022)

Looking at "cishet" stascan reported that 4% of the population identify as 2SLGBTQ2+ in 2018.  (1/3 of whom are under 25)

From the same year it appears 0.24% of Canadians identified as trans or Non-binary. 

Very rough math indicates there's around 91,200 trans/non-binary Canadians. Not taking into account the percentage of that number that are under 18, over 65, or can't meet UoS, is it a surprise our organization isn't swimming with trans leaders?  

Wouldn't having 1 trans general actually be over representation? 

Same question with 2SLGBTQ2+. 
At 4% of the population that doesn't give the CAF a big 2SLGBTQ2+ pool to draw senior leaders from.


----------



## btrudy (28 May 2022)

Remius said:


> What is it specifically about the system that favours white men?


Probably best explained in the report


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Probably best explained in the report


Don’t cop out.  Point is to the relevant sections of the report.


----------



## Remius (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Probably best explained in the report


So when I read the section on women.  It’s says child rearing is a big issue.  How does one address that then? 

Women that choose to take time off to have kids is the issue.  I know plenty of men that take time off for child rearing.  Are they disadvantaged as well? 

Men can take time off.  Men do take time off.  What makes it an issue in the CAF that advantages men over women? 

If both men and women take that time why is one not disadvantaged over the other?


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2022)

Remius said:


> If both men and women take that time why is one not disadvantaged over the other?



Wasn't this the report that said men should be forced to take time off?


----------



## Remius (29 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Wasn't this the report that said men should be forced to take time off?


They did. 

My question though is why does time off for a kid disadvantage a woman more that a man?   Or do both face the same disadvantage?  Both can take parental leave.


----------



## MH2022 (29 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> You’ve done GBA+, right?  Why on earth would you chose to use a gender as a verb when there are much more appropriate words to use?
> 
> 
> Edit to add:  Ah, you mean the “so long as it’s white males leaving” part.  Well, you see, anti-discriminatory discrimination is actually allowed by CAF and GoC policy.  btrudy pointed out the relative section earlier in this thread, Part 16 of the Charter. I believe.
> ...


There's the other thing about this place, you'd rather latch onto some minute detail than actually focus on the main point. We are running out of personal, that is my point of you, want to stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is fine enjoy. We need to figure out why we are losing 10k people a decade or soon


Good2Golf said:


> You’ve done GBA+, right?  Why on earth would you chose to use a gender as a verb when there are much more appropriate words to use?
> 
> 
> Edit to add:  Ah, you mean the “so long as it’s white males leaving” part.  Well, you see, anti-discriminatory discrimination is actually allowed by CAF and GoC policy.  btrudy pointed out the relative section earlier in this thread, Part 16 of the Charter. I believe.
> ...


There's the other thing about this place, you'd rather latch onto some minute detail than actually focus on the main point. We are running out of personal, that is my point, if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is fine enjoy. We need to figure out why we are running out of people cause at the end of the day we can't afford to lose any more


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 May 2022)

The evaluation system is very specific; criticisms should be equally specific.  No amount of hand-waving about general factors and insinuations will do.

One cultural bias that everyone seems comfortable overlooking is this: men are expected to support at least themselves, if not a family and society at large, starting from whatever time they leave high school.  Women are not.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 May 2022)

Maybe its the fact that right now its a extremely hot job market, huge social safety net, not really that much reason to want to be in the CAF anymore as most the perks that existed are dying a quick death, and all the disadvantages of civilian work culture is being fostered on it. 

Give a huge recession and a loss of security net and the CAF will boom again.


----------



## Weinie (29 May 2022)

well


btrudy said:


> Look, I get it. You don't care about the problem because it doesn't affect you. *And you resort to mockery of people who do care.*
> 
> Sure as heck says a lot about you and your moral compass, or lack thereof, but you do you I guess.


I only mock those that deserve to be mocked.


----------



## btrudy (29 May 2022)

Remius said:


> They did.
> 
> My question though is why does time off for a kid disadvantage a woman more that a man?   Or do both face the same disadvantage?  Both can take parental leave.



I don't think it does, it's just women are far more likely to take said leave than men do.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2022)

Here’s the most recent PER / evaluation policies that are relevant:

CANFORGEN 045/20, Para 5(f)



CANFORGEN 023/21, Para 5(f)



And finally, CANFORGEN 009/22

Para 4(a)  [which adds “improved in future years”]




and Para 5(d) and (e)


My PER is completely void of any indication of sex, gender, etc.

I’m not sure how any Board can advantage or disadvantage me and my scoring.  I guess there is the odd chance they have been on Sqn or a deployment with me etc and recognize me by name alone.


----------



## dimsum (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't think it does, it's just women are far more likely to take said leave than men do.


In my (admittedly non-scientific) recall of my friends, all of them (male and female) took PATA leave.

Granted, it was likely because they were gone so much that they'd want to take time with their baby/family, but who knows...


----------



## Remius (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't think it does, it's just women are far more likely to take said leave than men do.


Ok so then the issue of promotions and lost opportunities is a result of mata/pata being the issue not something inherently systemically sexist towards women and favouring white men.    

MATA/PATA (in this case) then is the issue and it affects the careers of both men and women in equal terms.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2022)

Everyone has their own little story on the CAF…

I showed up in Cornwallis in July 1989; 18 years old growing up in PEI.   Our first Marching NCO was MCpl Turcotte.  They marched us around including to meet our Platoon Commander;  WO  Tacso.  Our platoon was fairly large; 120 people from all across Canada and the different ethnicities and cultures that existed in the day.  Rural Canada, urban Canada.  We spent huge amounts of time together and quickly learned lots about differences in our upbringings and even differences experienced because of the province we grew up in.  It was my first exposure to a cross cut of Canadian society from coast to coast.  There were certainly personality conflicts especially after a night in the G & G; none of them racial based - some people just don’t like each other.  We passed our Saluting test and were presented our cap badges by our Coy Commander, Capt Manko.  One of our MCpl instructors was the spouse of a Lt(N).  We would watch them salute their spouse when they came to our Shacks at the end of the training day sometimes and think how weird that must be, to salute your spouse.

I remember not long after leaving Cornwallis and experiencing Gagetown for the first time in 1990 and being challenged by the Base RSM, CWO Clayton, for walking on the grass (which was part of a soccer or ball field) taking a short cut to the Maritimer.  An imposing individual who left their impression on you.  Also remember the same type of impression from a Parachute Instructor (PI) on my Basic Para in ‘92 at the CABC - Sgt Thomas.  A hard, professional soldier you watched and said “I want to be like they are”.

MCpl Turcotte was a French Canadian female.

Our instructors married to the Lt(N) was a medic male MCpl whose wife was a Nursing Officer or whatever the trade was back then.

WO (Clyde) Tasco was a black man, who became a friend many years down the road when I meet him again when I was a young Sgt.  RIP Clyde.

Capt Manko was a female Air Force DEU officer. She commanded C Coy. 

So in my Platoon, a female Officer was in command of a black WO who oversaw a French Canadian female who was our “God”;  instructors controlled our every waking moment.  We watched one of our Mcpls, salute his wife and call her ma’am.

Base RSM, CWO Cy Clayton was a much feared and respected figure.  He is also a black Canadian from Halifax.

Sgt Thomas; a very fit and professional FN airborne solider.   

Maybe we were doing it right then, in some places and ways at least.

Fast forward 2009 timeframe.  Then LCol Bourgon was CO 406 or  when I was there on BTL before heading to Winnipeg for Wings training.  My Crse Dir was a female Sgt.  The WO who did my check ride…female WO.
Years later, I enjoyed a relaxed and friendly conversation with then BGen Bourgon on the patio at Camp Canada in Kuwait after they took over commander of Joint Task Force - Iraq with another Sgt who had also been at 12 Wg during their Comd.  That would have been 2015, tail end of Roto 0.

And there are some of the reasons the “only white men have and will progress” message rings false to my lived experiences in the CAF in the last near-33 years.

No, we aren’t perfect.  Likely never will be because our recruiting base is imperfect.  But we’re much better than we were and taking steps to modernize.   I think we can give ourselves a pat on the back while continuing to move forward.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 May 2022)

TheMattHan said:


> There's the other thing about this place, you'd rather latch onto some minute detail than actually focus on the main point. We are running out of personal, that is my point of you, want to stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is fine enjoy. We need to figure out why we are losing 10k people a decade or soon


Could you help some of us out with appreciating the acknowledged main factors in the 10k/year loss of personnel?


----------



## FSTO (29 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> In my (admittedly non-scientific) recall of my friends, all of them (male and female) took PATA leave.
> 
> Granted, it was likely because they were gone so much that they'd want to take time with their baby/family, but who knows...


When my daughter was born in 92 I had no idea that there was PATA leave available. So I kept sailing. My son was born while I was RSS at a NRD so saw no need for it. When one of my fellow officers applied for PATA the rest of us where somewhat shocked that it was available and that he took it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> So by your logic, if white males are bad for the organization, why is the CAF even still teaching skills to them?  Let them move on from the CAF, as Bruce Monkhouse suggests, and then simply replace them with the proper proportion of demographics of new CAF members — problem solved!



Yep!  They told me I needed to wait the compulsory six months.  As far as I was concerned, sooner the better.  



TheMattHan said:


> Not saying you're evil, the facts say we're losing people. We need to find ways to keep what we have left, if that means a union let's do it. But right now the troops are leaving in droves. This whole site will spends months debating the ideal amount of c6s in a platoon but none of that matters if in 10 years there ain't anyone left to man them.



Nobody wants to serve in the CAF because it's a toxic workplace.  The current war against "toxic masculinity" has a lot to do with that toxicity.



Jarnhamar said:


> Looking at "cishet" stascan reported that 4% of the population identify as 2SLGBTQ2+ in 2018.  (1/3 of whom are under 25)
> 
> From the same year it appears 0.24% of Canadians identified as trans or Non-binary.
> 
> ...


These people remind me of those parents that think their kids are going to make the NHL because they paid for all the expensive camps, bought them the best gear, etc.

They have trouble accepting the fact that.... "maybe they just aren't that good?" 😁

With only 91,000 trans/non-binary Canadians, the chances of them producing a General Officer on merit are incredibly low.  Probably lower than one of them making the NHL.

The stars would need to align perfectly.  It's the same thing with females that want to have kids instead of working and end up missing important career milestones, deployments and gaining subsequent experience as a result.


----------



## FSTO (29 May 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yep!  They told me I needed to wait the compulsory six months.  As far as I was concerned, sooner the better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Heretic


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 May 2022)

FSTO said:


> Heretic


Yep, probably for the best I'm moving on in a few weeks 😉

Hopefully in a few years, I'll be crying myself to sleep with dollar bills wondering why I ever gave a damn 😆


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2022)

Here’s a good description of why we’re probably losing the war for talent.

Left side: most traditional organizations. Left side: organizationsthat will survive in the future:


----------



## Booter (29 May 2022)

It presently isn’t a conversation that is being had in the open- “prejudice”- overt or systemic isn’t a reason. Show me what it is about the system that doesn’t support or move people along- if it’s a thing that can be addressed without compromising fighting readiness then let’s crack at it- but much like some personal circumstance that causes me to look elsewhere for employment- just because it doesn’t fit all stages of life doesn’t mean it’s  prejudice. Show the systems prejudice and we ll examine it.

I don’t buy a lot of it- because it seems to rely on the “noble savage” error, I googled it and it seems like we still use that term so excuse me if it’s offensive and I’m unaware- it still appears to be a referenced trope.

That if we put minority populations into command positions that somehow their intentions are pure and they’ll look the people out for marginalized people- that they don’t suffer from selfishness. Which isn’t true. Like at all. It is important to pursue equal opportunity. Pursue diversity. Let’s get extra voices at the table. But let’s not act like they’re a magic bullet, taking care of people and pursuing their health and wellness is a worthy thing, understanding my people is a worthy thing. So it’s neccessary to seek understanding- varied voices. But it’s no magic bullet to cure selfish assholes. If our promotions system rewards dickheads- it will just reward dickheads of a different “type”

But that pursuit doesn’t have primacy. Organizational goals have primacy.

So, the first place this disconnects is on our  ideals.

So for some- they have stated that they believe it’s a moral imperative, a primacy, to stamp out discrimination. It comes out ahead of things like war fighting. Which is fine. Maybe it’s like on a scale of 10- equality and diversity is 10/10 goals for them and war fighting is 9/10. It doesn’t mean they don’t value operations- it means they value equality, and their views on how to get there slightly more than straight operational capability,

Then when I look at my values for the org- 10/10 is operational readiness. Followed somewhere after that for diversity etc.

So because the main things are different we really can’t fundamentally agree on big drastic changes. Mine will always be operations, theirs  will be removing some toxic factor. The good news is big drastic moves are hardly ever effective and we can more likely agree on smaller factors to move us in the right direction.

Like I would say “we need boots!” Everyone can agree on that. They can say “bold eagle is good idea but here is ways we can improve on it”. And I would be like that is a good idea.

So I can value the opinion of others without really having to fall in like with their thinking. 🤷‍♀️

But I am hungover. Maybe I’m Out of my mind


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 May 2022)

When a person says "As an "X"...", it's still just one person's opinion.  There aren't really any people entitled to speak for the groups of which they claim membership.  Value the opinion accordingly.

Solutions crafted to alleviate a problem for group "X" should be examined as to whether the solutions are more universally applicable.  If so, apply universally.  Schemes designed to benefit "X" and no further should be waste-binned.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Probably best explained in the report


We’re still waiting for you to point us to the relevant sections of the report.


----------



## btrudy (29 May 2022)

> Due to the institutionalization of racism in Canada, harmful conditions persist that disproportionately impact Indigenous populations. For example, institutional racism has disadvantaged Indigenous populations across education, health care, judicial and prison systems. There are glaring disparities in post-secondary attainment for Indigenous People as compared to the rest of Canadians: 8% compared to 20%, respectively.Footnote18 Challenges to Indigenous education attainment relate to attempts to integrate Indigenous learners within "predominately Euro-Western defined and ascribed structures, academic disciplines, policies, and practices."Footnote19 The effects of these structures within the education system are compounded by and intersect with a sense of mistrust towards Canadian education on the part of Indigenous Peoples due to "generations of grandparents and parents who were scarred by their experience"Footnote20 in Residential Schools, as well as insufficient funding for on-reserve schools and inadequate access to essential services.Footnote21





> Perpetuated negative stereotypes about Black people have led to the internalized racism that impacts contemporary society.Footnote37 An example of internalized inequality is outlined in a 2015 survey showing that while "nearly 94 percent of Black young people aged 15 to 25 said they would like to complete a university degree, only 59.9 percent thought it was possible."Footnote38 In contrast, "82 percent of other groups surveyed said they wanted to achieve a university education, and 78.8 percent believed they could."Footnote39 This is evidence of the significant gap between hope and expectation among Black youth.
> 
> Andrea Davis, associate professor at York University's Department of Humanities, explains that Black young people "work tremendously hard and their aspirations [for education] are great. But very few people have told them they can be successful."Footnote40 She argues that the most profound finding from her research on the impact of violence among youth in Toronto is that Black youth perceive everyday lived experiences of cultural racism as the worst form of racism. They have experienced it from "teachers who did not believe in them, who stereotyped them, who over-disciplined and over-punished them, who constructed possibilities for them that were different from the possibilities for other children."Footnote41





> The Intersection of Racism with Experiential and Identity Factors​Racism intersects in complex ways with other systems of oppression that construct the differential treatment and perceived value assigned to groups based on gender, sexual orientation and ability. Racism, patriarchy, heteronormativity and white supremacy are embedded in systemic, institutionalized and structural forms of discrimination. Their manifestations range from extreme acts of hate to normalized cultural exclusion and marginalization.





> Retention​High retention rates can be an indicator of positive general morale and contribute to operational effectiveness. DND/CAF statistics demonstrate that Indigenous Peoples, visible minorities, women and persons with disabilities have much lower retention rates than white men. As a result, there are fewer individuals from these groups who reach higher rank levels or leadership positions.
> 
> In the CAF, the disparity becomes pronounced from the Sergeant and Lieutenant levels onwards. The disparity also exists at the Executive level of the National Defence civilian employee population. Again, data to compare representation of Employment Equity group members at lower-level civilian positions was not available to the Advisory Panel in time for this report.
> 
> It is important to understand that these observations do not diminish the value and contributions of white men within DND/CAF. Rather, they serve to signal that barriers are preventing all groups from equally thriving within the Defence Team. By the same token, they outline an opportunity to improve the demographic representation within the Defence Team.





> Summary of Part I​Racism in Canada is not a glitch in the system; it is the system. Colonialism and intersecting systems such as patriarchy, heteronormativity and ableism constitute the root causes of inequality within Canada. Throughout Canada's history, the existence of systemic and cultural racism has been enshrined in regulations, norms, and standard practices. Canada has recognized, and continues to acknowledge, its history of racial discrimination by introducing _Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms_, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the _Canadian Multiculturalism Act_, as well as the repealing of discriminatory policies and practices.
> 
> The Defence Team's foundational values were chiselled from Canadian ones, and formed the basis of all its practices, assumptions and approaches. The Defence Team's work schedules and holidays which are mostly based on its Christian traditions, the food prepared in mess halls which often revolves around traditional recipes from Euro-Canadian meals, and the gendered language of French—and of some English words—these are all cornerstones of unintentional biases. These practices are codified, personally and collectively, into the daily lives of each member of the Defence Team. Although at first glance they do not appear to be pernicious threats to equity, they greatly influence the comfort gauge for those who prefer a more homogenous society. Life is easier when everyone is the same.  Adapting different rules, changing methodologies, and evolving norms requires effort.
> 
> ...





> An ongoing concern for the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command is the challenge of keeping white supremacists from joining the Defence Team. A thorough review of social media posts from potential recruits is part of the filtering process. But members affiliated with IMVE groups are becoming more sophisticated in their use of technology, and they are finding ways to be surreptitious in their recruiting interviews. Recruiters are not all trained and knowledgeable about methods to detect certain types of behaviour that would indicate affiliation with extremist groups or a penchant for extremist behaviours.
> 
> White supremacy, terrorism, neo-Nazism and all forms of IMVE are complex and fast evolving. The need for education and training for leaders at all levels of the Defence Team was highlighted repeatedly during the Advisory Panel's consultations. Funding, expertise, and human resources are currently not adequate to address the imperative that every leader become the first line of defence in ensuring that members of these groups stay out of or leave the Defence Team.
> 
> In addition, the Advisory Panel heard some confusion among Defence Team members concerning the proper procedures for dealing with members who affiliate with hate groups or even for how to determine the gravity of such an affiliation. There was a consensus for zero tolerance of hateful behaviour, but the application of consequences for such conduct or for affiliation with hate groups is not standardized. Consequences can range from simple warnings to relief from duty.





> It is necessary as well to recognize that, for some Canadians, religion can be a source of suffering and generational trauma. This is especially true for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited members of Canadian society. And Indigenous Peoples have suffered unimaginable generational trauma and genocide at the hands of Christian religious leaders through initiatives such as Residential School and Indian Day School programs.
> 
> Another important point is that, at present, some chaplains represent or are affiliated with organized religions whose beliefs are not synonymous with those of a diverse and inclusive workplace. Some of the affiliated religions of these chaplains do not subscribe to an open attitude and the promotion of diversity.
> 
> For example, some churches' exclusion of women from their priesthoods violates principles of equality and social justice, as do sexist notions embedded in their religious dogmas. In addition, certain faiths have strict tenets requiring conversion of those they deem to be “pagan,” or who belong to polytheistic religions. These faiths’ dogmas and practices conflict with the commitment of the Defence Team to value equality and inclusivity at every level of the workplace.





> The persistence of high rates of sexual assault and domestic violence within the Defence Team underscores the critical importance of professional, non-discriminatory investigation of these crimes.Footnote120 The 2015 Deschamps report outlined specific recommendations with regards to external investigations of sexual misconduct.Footnote121 They were largely ignored by the Defence Team. As a new external review led by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour is now underway, this Advisory Panel focussed on systemic barriers in Military Policing with regards to structure and functionality.
> 
> The Advisory Panel engaged with several members of the Defence Team, mostly women and some men, who expressed a strong reluctance to report sexual misconduct crime to the Military Police (MP). Their reasons varied: some were concerned about the rank structure (for example, Captains having to report an incident to a Military Police Sergeant). Others considered the Military Police to be untrustworthy given their track record in dealing with this type of investigation.
> 
> ...





> Through consultations with three transgender women of various ranks and positions within the Defence Team, the Advisory Panel was made aware of some of the discriminatory practices inflicted upon transgender members. Although this information is anecdotal given the limited number of transgender women with whom the Advisory Panel consulted (and no consultations were done with transgender men), there were similarities in their stories and challenges.
> 
> Because of their gender non-conformity, many transgender members within the Defence Team face psychosocial burdens, challenges and barriers that range from adverse social attitudes to open hostility. It is important to note that 27% of transgender patients attempt suicide while waiting for gender affirming medical procedures.Footnote125
> 
> ...



tl;dr Bigotry exists, a lot of people in the CAF are bigots, and thus that bigotry changes the way that certain people are "dealt with". 

The Canadian Armed Forces is a microcosm of Canadian Society, which is by and large racist. It in particular was set up by white Christian men, to suit white Christian men. 

Efforts made to eradicate even people who are actively members of hate groups are inadequate, let alone those people who simply hold bigoted views and allow those views to taint their decision making processes, all of which will A) disadvantage members who "don't fit the mold", while at the same time serving to aid people who do "fit in". 

Likewise sexual assaults or harassments, which in the CAF are predominately targeting women, are poorly investigated, leading many victims to leave due to the lack of support, or to be revictimized when they do report and instead the system as a whole moves to target them and smear their reputation, rather than the person who actually deserves it (for this, see the 2nd most recent article by he-who-shall-not-be-named-on-this-site-because-the-moderators-couldn't-be-bothered-to-remove-defamatory-comments). Likewise a similar approach is often taken against folks who try to support victims, as we saw with LCdr Trotter. 

When there are a myriad of interactions that one takes throughout the year that involve a person coming into contact with, relying upon the good faith efforts of other members of the defence team who, due to their bigotry, are disinclined to support or even actively oppose your success, then the net result will be that the cishet white men who "fit in" with the system that was set up to allow people like them to succeed are more likely to do so, while those who get dragged down by the constant instances of bigotry, large and small, are less likely to succeed, through no fault of their own. 

But, anyways, I think that's the last I'm going to say on this topic, as frankly I think the majority of people commenting here are not doing so in good faith, and frankly I've got no patience for such bullshit anymore.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> But, anyways, I think that's the last I'm going to say on this topic, as frankly I think the majority of people commenting here are not doing so in good faith, and frankly I've got no patience for such bullshit anymore.


You mean people aren’t agreeing completely with you, and/or aren’t apologizing for their privilege as well as acknowledging that they are the reason all the women, male-minorities and  LGBTQQIP2SAA CAF members left?

If you were CDS, what single-most policy/direct action would you enact to resolve the situation?


----------



## Remius (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> But, anyways, I think that's the last I'm going to say on this topic, as frankly I think the majority of people commenting here are not doing so in good faith, and frankly I've got no patience for such bullshit anymore.



I was in fact discussing in good faith.  I think what is overlooked is maybe the things that make white men quit or leave or what not are the same things making women quit or leave or anyone else for that matter.  Does bigotry exist?  Yes.  Is the reason for all the problems?  No.   It’s certainly part of it though. 

We should look at things in compartments rather that as one big lump.  People talk of white male  privilege in very narrow terms.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> tl;dr Bigotry exists, a lot of people in the CAF are bigots, and thus that bigotry changes the way that certain people are "dealt with".
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces is a microcosm of Canadian Society, which is by and large racist. It in particular was set up by white Christian men, to suit white Christian men.
> 
> ...


None of this is specific to our evaluation system and most are actually issues across the whole Country…


----------



## btrudy (29 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> You mean people aren’t agreeing completely with you, and/or aren’t apologizing for their privilege as well as acknowledging that they are the reason all the women, male-minorities and  LGBTQQIP2SAA CAF members left?
> 
> If you were CDS, what single-most policy/direct action would you enact to resolve the situation?


Single action? Remove the QR&O banning unionization. 

I would expect most suitable corrective actions would flow from there. 



SupersonicMax said:


> None of this is specific to our evaluation system and most are actually issues across the whole Country…



Point being? Issues that are systemic across the entire country will indeed affect the entire country, including the evaluation system for military personnel.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 May 2022)

An information dump of general issues raised by the report does not really address what is wrong with the evaluation system.  The answer to any "what is wrong with X" question is not "look at all the pages and pages and pages of stuff here".

The report is not to be taken seriously.  What, for example, does this have to do with changes the CAF should undertake:

"There are glaring disparities in post-secondary attainment for Indigenous People as compared to the rest of Canadians: 8% compared to 20%, respectively."

Couple of things on that.  First, kids have to show up and stay in school and achieve proper graduation, not a certificate of attendance or whatever the consolation prize is these days; second, kids have to meet the standards of academic preparation for post-secondary education - whatever is relevant, not whatever they would rather be doing.  But neither of those are within the scope of the CAF.

"Issues that are systemic across the entire country will indeed affect the entire country, including the evaluation system for military personnel."

B does not necessarily follow from A.  Cause-effect must be shown.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> An information dump of general issues raised by the report does not really address what is wrong with the evaluation system.  The answer to any "what is wrong with X" question is not "look at all the pages and pages and pages of stuff here".
> 
> The report is not to be taken seriously.  What, for example, does this have to do with changes the CAF should undertake:
> 
> ...



I think the CAF Twitter feed provides better information on how diverse, or not, we are. Viz:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529522697796997120


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2022)

A union would cripple the CAF for a decade.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I think the CAF Twitter feed provides better information on how diverse, or not, we are. Viz:
> 
> View attachment 71086
> 
> ...



…or…you could also see a Tweet that shows 30% women of a formation, significantly higher (almost double) than the pan-CAF composition from women. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524087133874630656


----------



## btrudy (29 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> A union would cripple the CAF for a decade.



Seems to be working for the RCMP. Which isn't saying they don't have issues, just that said issues seem largely to stem from management decisions. 

You know what'll cripple the CAF for more than a decade? Continuing to do nothing to fix our ongoing retention crisis, making the burnout for whoever is left even worse until everyone leaves.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> You know what'll cripple the CAF for more than a decade? Continuing to do nothing to fix our ongoing retention crisis, making the burnout for whoever is left even worse until everyone leaves.



All the more reason to accelerate the release of white males.  The sooner the problem is resolved, the better.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> A union would cripple the CAF for a decade.



I am a proponent of our unionization.  But if we want avoid it we need fix us ourselves.


----------



## Booter (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Seems to be working for the RCMP. Which isn't saying they don't have issues, just that said issues seem largely to stem from management decisions


Actually the “union” is making it slower to deal with senior NCOs accused of sexual misconduct. More assistance on appeals, more appeals, more foot dragging.

It’s lengthened the process and protects the people accused of Conduct violations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Seems to be working for the RCMP.


Even pre-union I don't think I could accuse a subordinate in the RCMP of littering (sans proof) and arbitrarily take away 6 of their week-ends telling them too ***king bad when they tell me it's their week-end to have custody.

Or send them to work in the kitchen for a week as punishment.

Or give them 4 days notice to go work thousands of kilometers away for 3 months.

I don't think we can fix ourselves and I'm actually pro-union; but it'll be a decade of chaos.



btrudy said:


> You know what'll cripple the CAF for more than a decade? Continuing to do nothing to fix our ongoing retention crisis, making the burnout for whoever is left even worse until everyone leaves.



Very true. Speaking of which, you know what would also cripple the CAF? Pissing on our largest recruiting pool (cis het white males) to the point where they see the writing on the wall and don't waste their time joining. Think we have shortages now? We'd have to press-gang visible minorities and 2SLGBTQ+ Canadians into service.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …or…you could also see a Tweet that shows 30% women of a formation, significantly higher (almost double) than the pan-CAF composition from women.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524087133874630656



Not going to dispute that... it just seems that anyone remotely interested in collecting examples of irony will find happy hunting grounds in CAF Twitter photos... like this one


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> btrudy said:
> 
> 
> > Point being? Issues that are systemic across the entire country will indeed affect the entire country, including the evaluation system for military personnel.


Except for those issues, the CAF has no control over.  Not sure what more we can do in our evaluation system. Perhaps you can offer suggestions since you seem to think it is terrible.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2022)

> Pissing on our largest recruiting pool (cis het white males) to the point where they see the writing on the wall and don't waste their time joining.



Not hard to avoid, but the trend I observe is activists taking things away rather than adding things in; attacking culture fosters a defensive mind.  Eg. destroying commemorative paraphernalia, rather than creating more, is harmful. 

Too often "we need to have a conservation/discussion/dialogue/talk" becomes "you need to sit quietly while we lecture" or (worse) "while we pass you under the harrow".  It's corrosive because there are no saintly identifiable groups; there are assholes everywhere.  It won't do to simply throw tantrums.  Criticism must be objective and specific if concrete measures are to be taken.

I don't recollect; what are the principles for preparing a grievance?


----------



## Remius (30 May 2022)

Anecdotal.  But over a decade ago a local police force had gained a reputation that white males need not apply.  It got to the point where they no longer had waiting lists or pools of potential applicants because of it.  They sent some of their recruiters to work with us to get some ideas on how to recruit more talent. 

2 big issues.  That reputation at not wanting to hire white males and them never going to recruiting events when police forces from across the country were attending recruiting events in there own backyard.  

Your recruiting pool should be as big, wide and diverse as it can be to attract talent.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 May 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Very true. Speaking of which, you know what would also cripple the CAF? Pissing on our largest recruiting pool (cis het white males) to the point where they see the writing on the wall and don't waste their time joining. Think we have shortages now? We'd have to press-gang visible minorities and 2SLGBTQ+ Canadians into service.


I'm going to enjoy sitting back with my popcorn watching it happen 😉

All I can say is Operational Capability is going to continue to decline, the trend line is very clear.  

There is no new money on the horizon, we are going to enter a prolonged period of austerity.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> All I can say is Operational Capability is going to continue to decline, the trend line is very clear.


Less the CAF’s ‘Combat Convening Capability.’ 👍🏼 

Once the demographics are corrected, I wonder which group will pick up the slack from the white males for the unspoken metric?


----------



## OldSolduer (30 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Less the CAF’s ‘Combat Convening Capability.’ 👍🏼
> 
> Once the demographics are corrected, I wonder which group will pick up the slack from the white males for the unspoken metric?



None of them. None. 

But when shit hits the fan the first ones to bitch will be the social engineers and activists who perpetrated this.


----------



## QV (30 May 2022)

After reading this thread, I'm entirely sold on a "diversity conscription" to meet the exact demographics of Canada. Let's press some folks into service for the greater good.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 May 2022)

If you want to see real discrimination in action, just grow old in a company you have worked a long time for and are collecting and using your benefits and vacation time. HR will work very hard to get rid of you and replace you with a newer, younger, cheaper employee. This effect is stalled for the moment thanks labour shortages, but will come back with a vengeance as soon as possible.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 May 2022)

QV said:


> After reading this thread, I'm entirely sold on a "diversity conscription" to meet the exact demographics of Canada. Let's press some folks into service for the greater good.


Me too 😎

They also shouldn't get to choose their trade either..... equal representation in all trades 😄


----------



## Remius (30 May 2022)

Just make service into a faster way to citizenship.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2022)

Remius said:


> Just make service into a faster way to citizenship.


…except for white males, of course.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …except for white males, of course.


We know the vast majority of the 110,000 who died in the service of Canada were ….


White males.


----------



## Quirky (30 May 2022)

QV said:


> After reading this thread, I'm entirely sold on a "diversity conscription" to meet the exact demographics of Canada. Let's press some folks into service for the greater good.


Agreed. Lets also post people to bases where their diversity represents the local area. 

Oh crap, it'll be all white folk again.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> We know the vast majority of the 110,000 who died in the service of Canada were ….
> 
> 
> White males.


Yes…but.

We’re moving on from that, OldSolduer.  It would seem the prevailing mood is that past contributions, when it doesn’t fit today’s anti-white male narrative, are to be suppressed as they simply serve to reinforce the misogynistic goals of today’s military, and keep us from embracing the demographic goals of our nation.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2022)

Quirky said:


> Agreed. Lets also post people to bases where their diversity represents the local area.
> 
> Oh crap, it'll be all white folk again.


Move Cold Lake to Vancouver, and Bagotville to Montréal (Saint-Hubert perhaps).  I know, I know…housing prices and all…easy, the new CAF members can live with their parents if they can’t afford their own housing.


----------



## Booter (30 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Move Cold Lake to Vancouver, and Bagotville to Montréal (Saint-Hubert perhaps).  I know, I know…housing prices and all…easy, the new CAF members can live with their parents if they can’t afford their own housing.


Desirable posting locations with quality, affordable housing would actually go a long way.

There are operational needs that push us into the boondocks but really- if we could build thousands of units, maintain them, and put them somewhere where people want to live…

Of all the money pipes we have open 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Remius (30 May 2022)

I would add that being sarcastic about white males being excluded doesn’t really help.  There is enough evidence and facts to show that white males have their place.  We can make the case using facts, logic and respect.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2022)

Remius said:


> I would add that being sarcastic about white males being excluded doesn’t really help. There is enough evidence and facts to show that white males have their place.


They certainly do, don’t they.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 May 2022)

While I agree with your opinion I personally cannot help but feel the sacrifices we - white males  have made for this nation are unappreciated in todays context and to be shrugged off.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> While I agree with your opinion I personally cannot help but feel the sacrifices we - white males  have made for this nation are unappreciated in todays context and to be shrugged off.



People often forget that the avenues we have to make the changes we are working towards were kept alive with the blood of thousands of young white men.


----------



## Remius (30 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> While I agree with your opinion I personally cannot help but feel the sacrifices we - white males  have made for this nation are unappreciated in todays context and to be shrugged off.


I think that could be said about the CAF as whole regardless of colour but yes I get your meaning.  And goes to the whole white privilege argument when we look at suicide rates, injuries and deaths.  

An example would be when we talk about systemic sexism and women being disproportionately affected by mata leave and the career implications.  A valid argument could be made about career ending injuries suffered by men in that same career limiting context.


----------



## btrudy (30 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If you want to see real discrimination in action, just grow old in a company you have worked a long time for and are collecting and using your benefits and vacation time. HR will work very hard to get rid of you and replace you with a newer, younger, cheaper employee. This effect is stalled for the moment thanks labour shortages, but will come back with a vengeance as soon as possible.



Sounds like a good reason to unionize.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> Sounds like a good reason to unionize.


You really think unions protect performance? 

They protect the ones who are bottom feeders. The chronically troubled ones.


----------



## Quirky (30 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> You really think unions protect performance?
> 
> They protect the ones who are bottom feeders. The chronically troubled ones.


 
We don’t need a union to protect the bottom feeders, we do that already.


----------



## mariomike (30 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> You really think unions protect performance?



Ours would tolerate almost anything, after probation.

As long as you did not become a public disgrace, and never, EVER, admit the department did anything wrong.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2022)

> Desirable posting locations with quality, affordable housing would actually go a long way.



Desirable locations with quality, affordable housing are a bit in demand by everyone, not just people subject to posting.

Unionization can be limiting if you're capable of high performance.


----------



## dimsum (30 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Unionization can be limiting if you're capable of high performance.


Are the proponents for unionization concerned about the bottom feeders keeping their jobs?  The arguments I see/hear about it is about collective bargaining.

I'm still on the fence whether it's a good thing or not.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2022)

Proponents for unionization have different reasons.  Unions once formed are, unremarkably, like every other bureaucracy that sets as its first imperative the health of the bureaucracy.  Collective bargaining has a tendency to level everything out.  People capable of turning in excellent performance and reaping the rewards (bonus compensation, accelerated promotion) are tall daisies.


----------



## Booter (30 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Are the proponents for unionization concerned about the bottom feeders keeping their jobs?  The arguments I see/hear about it is about collective bargaining.
> 
> I'm still on the fence whether it's a good thing or not.


I find it odd that the people most obsessed with splintering people into groups for classification are most concerned with collective bargaining.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Are the proponents for unionization concerned about the bottom feeders keeping their jobs?  The arguments I see/hear about it is about collective bargaining.
> 
> I'm still on the fence whether it's a good thing or not.



It seems to work for some conscripted militaries, where their only role is national defence on home turf and millions of souls are involved.

Tiny 'Expeditionary Forces' like ours? Not so much IMHO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 May 2022)

I was a Union guy, a Steward for 32 years, one thing you better know is eventually seniority will rule.   You work hard to get the nice Outcan, posting, promotion, etc??    No one cares, Slothtoed Bloggins has 2 more months then you so he gets the peanut butter and you get jammed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> It seems to work for some conscripted militaries, where their only role is national defence on home turf and millions of souls are involved.
> 
> Tiny 'Expeditionary Forces' like ours? Not so much IMHO.


And where a far away posting might mean a 5 hour drive to visit your folks....


----------



## mariomike (30 May 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> , one thing you better know is eventually seniority will rule.



Seniority ( Senior Qualified Process ) determined where you work, when you work, who you work with, what job you work, when you take vacation etc. Pretty much everything.

There was a Relative Ability Process for Critical Care. ( Good idea.  )


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2022)

I'd rather see the Grievance process strengthened by (1) making it so IAs HAVE to respect timelines and (2) career ramifications if they don't as opposed to being handcuffed to some union and their agenda.

I'd also reduce the timelines the IA has to reply and the grievor has to submit to 30 days each.  Remove CAF Officers from the grievance system as analysts/have a non-CAF agency perform the analysis process. 

Mostly though, specific penalties to IAs who do not do their job.  Career penalties or monetary ones...or both.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 May 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Me too 😎
> 
> They also shouldn't get to choose their trade either..... equal representation in all trades 😄


Welcome to the Mobile Infantry!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Are the proponents for unionization concerned about the bottom feeders keeping their jobs?  The arguments I see/hear about it is about collective bargaining.
> 
> I'm still on the fence whether it's a good thing or not.


Having worked in both union and non-union, local companies up to about 100 people do well without unions as there is a more hands on approach. After that, the company can become more bureaucratic and harder for humans to manage in a humane way. a large organization like the government can crush someone, without even meaning to and you would have no recourse whatsoever without the union. I see them as a necessary evil, equally rigid in their policies and mandate as management, but at least obligated to represent you. I have known Shop Stewards that have created great working relationships with management to resolve these typical frictions in a non combative way. Also Shop Stewards struggling to contain their desire to drag the useless waste of O2 of an employee out into the alley and beat the snot out of them and instead having to represent them in grievances.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Also Shop Stewards struggling to contain their desire to drag the useless waste of O2 of an employee out into the alley and beat the snot out of them and instead having to represent them in grievances.


TESTIFY!!!!


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Having worked in both union and non-union, local companies up to about 100 people do well without unions as there is a more hands on approach. After that, the company can become more bureaucratic and harder for humans to manage in a humane way. a large organization like the government can crush someone, without even meaning to and you would have no recourse whatsoever without the union. I see them as a necessary evil, equally rigid in their policies and mandate as management, but at least obligated to represent you. I have known Shop Stewards that have created great working relationships with management to resolve these typical frictions in a non combative way. Also Shop Stewards struggling to contain their desire to drag the useless waste of O2 of an employee out into the alley and beat the snot out of them and instead having to represent them in grievances.



I watched a painful exchange between management and union leaders regarding an employee who was off work - on long term disability - because of an alleged back injury that stopped her from working at a sawmill.

Awkwardly, for her, she appeared the week before on the front page of the local paper having won first prize at a weight lifting competition.

The Union guys ate alot of crow that day, but finally agreed that she should be fired. This experience confirmed for me that I would never, ever want to do that kind of job


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2022)

I had a P1 Storesman who couldn't store ship according to his MELs but he ran marathons. 

I accidentally dropped a 50lb bag spuds on him one day as he heckled us storing ship by hand from the flight deck.  

Good guy, ended up teaching me how to play guitar.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I accidentally dropped a 50lb bag spuds on him one day as he heckled us storing ship by hand from the flight deck.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (31 May 2022)

btrudy said:


> tl;dr Bigotry exists, a lot of people in the CAF are bigots, and thus that bigotry changes the way that certain people are "dealt with".
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces is a microcosm of Canadian Society, which is by and large racist. It in particular was set up by white Christian men, to suit white Christian men.
> 
> ...


Firstly Canadian society is probably the least racist society on the planet, I challenge you to name one country which has less racism. That doesn’t mean there aren’t racists, simply that every society has them.

Secondly there are bigots everywhere, based off your posts I could potentially consider you one (not saying you are or aren’t, I try to reserve judgement for in person conversations). That doesn’t mean people are treated terribly or wrongly. If you have one bad supervisor your next one might be a excellent one, its all variable and it depends on where you are. I have had terrible supervisors in and out of the military, but by and large the supervisors I have had in the military have been better than the ones I have had civilian side. You are not always going to see eye to eye with your supervisor, that doesn’t mean they are bigoted either.

As to the sexual assaults and harassment, based off what I have experienced they take it very seriously. More seriously than civilian police forces tend to from what I have seen. The move to make it no longer under the MPs in my opinion is a colossal mistake and shall likely result in worse outcomes than having the MPs take care of it. The CAF has changed significantly on this in the last 7 years, the result being we deal with it much better than they do civvy side, or at least did before they took the MPs out of the equation.



QV said:


> After reading this thread, I'm entirely sold on a "diversity conscription" to meet the exact demographics of Canada. Let's press some folks into service for the greater good.


Bermuda does this, it works for them as it is more to address the rich/poor divide in their country. It is the only way to achieve this perfect representation of society. But I would always argue against it as to me conscription is inherently wrong.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 May 2022)

Every proponent of conscription should first agree to participate.  (A reasonable scheme of conscription would have public service alternatives for objectors or people unsuited to military service.)


----------



## dimsum (31 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Every proponent of conscription should first agree to participate


and agree that their children would also participate.


----------



## GK .Dundas (31 May 2022)

Works for me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 May 2022)

I suppose if we had universal conscription, the kids would already be in the mix.  To be clear, my peeve is people who advocate conscription having gotten past the age at which they would have had to give up part of their lives.


----------



## GK .Dundas (31 May 2022)

Yeah ,that might include me on the other hand I tend to be opposed to Conscription.


----------



## Spencer100 (31 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If you want to see real discrimination in action, just grow old in a company you have worked a long time for and are collecting and using your benefits and vacation time. HR will work very hard to get rid of you and replace you with a newer, younger, cheaper employee. This effect is stalled for the moment thanks labour shortages, but will come back with a vengeance as soon as possible.


Most companies I know are hiring older more seasoned employees.  One they show up for work. Two they know stuff.  The new younger ones are painful to deal with.  Requiring more, management, HR, training time.  I would give you an extra week of vacation if you show up all the other times.   We as a society are in for pain going forward.   As this whole thread talks about.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 May 2022)

Soldiering is largely a young person’s game. Without over-generalizing, if the ”workforce” is too old, it is very difficult to put up with much of the rigours and realities of “coalface” military work.


----------



## mariomike (31 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If you want to see real discrimination in action, just grow old in a company you have worked a long time for and are collecting and using your benefits and vacation time. HR will work very hard to get rid of you and replace you with a newer, younger, cheaper employee.



Depends on the organization, I suppose.

Towards the end, I burned my sick bank down to 180 days. That covered the nine-month gratuity.
Took all my vacation time too.

It was common practice. I suspect the Stress Leave the "younger, cheaper employee"s have now is costing HR more "non-productive" time than we ever did.


----------



## QV (31 May 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I suppose if we had universal conscription, the kids would already be in the mix.  To be clear, my peeve is people who advocate conscription having gotten past the age at which they would have had to give up part of their lives.


I’m not for universal conscription at all. But the soldier in me seeks to accomplish the mission, and the only way to get the CAF to mirror society is to compel conscription. A basic understanding of evolutionary psychology would inform us we won’t get to the CAF utopia voluntarily. There are similar reasons the roofing trade is not equally representative of society.


----------



## Remius (31 May 2022)

QV said:


> I’m not for universal conscription at all. But the soldier in me seeks to accomplish the mission, and the only way to get the CAF to mirror society is to compel conscription. A basic understanding of evolutionary psychology would inform us we won’t get to the CAF utopia voluntarily. There are similar reasons the roofing trade is not equally representative of society.


Imagine the most unmotivated troops you’ve run into.  Now multiply that by the number of conscripts you bring in…


----------



## OldSolduer (31 May 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Soldiering is largely a young person’s game. Without over-generalizing, if the ”workforce” is too old, it is very difficult to put up with much of the rigours and realities of “coalface” military work.


Bingo SKT. At 30 the infantry section attack is far more difficult than it was at 22. Then add the knee, ankle, back and other injuries one may experience.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Jun 2022)

The crappy thing about all this is if it is done properly, some really huge benefits to being more diverse, like having people familiar with the culture/language when we deploy somewhere.

The approach that seems to be suggested by this report though is that gains in these areas *are made at the expense of others* vice doing it on top of everything else. We lose way more people than we bring in every year, so if you have 3 good candidates, instead of dropping one if the other two tick a box, would it not make more sense to take all 3?

Fully appreciate what that means, but unless we want to cut units, we really need to serious increase our training throughput, fix retention, or a combination of both.

Boggles my mind people want to grow capabilities, when we don't have enough people as it is.

Hopeful this garbage report gets chucked in the bin though, the idea of forcing people to take PATA, hiring people that don't speak either official language and all the other nonsense is just unworkable. Our job isn't to fix Canadian society, just take people from that pool and work together as a fighting force.


----------



## MH2022 (19 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Could you help some of us out with appreciating the acknowledged main factors in the 10k/year loss of personnel?


I'll speak on the issues myself have noticed. 

1. Our demographic of recruit has been changing from a more rural individual to someone more urbanized who may not see the same alure in living 30 minutes from the closest real "settlement" of 30k people as someone who grew up with that. 

2. Pay, while 60k a year after 4 years is good for someone with no post secondary, we're falling flat in retaining specialized in demand people. Our technical side sees the private sector paying sometimes double without the added stressors that come with wearing the green. 

3. Burn out, as we lose more pers the workload does not decrease for those left behind which causes a domino effect of people having to fill multiple roles, getting burnt out, then releasing therefore pushing their roles onto the remaining members which leads to their burnout. Apparently the worst off for this is the navy with it not being uncommon for special hardsea trades being swapped from ship to ship going out to sea. 

4. A lack of support to the member. As a soldier I expect a few things. To be paid in a timely manner and if due to the whims of a spreadsheet I'm posted across the country the army has a roof for me to live under. I might be an extremist is saying this but I think a military should have enough places for every member/family if they have one to live doesn't need to be fancy but that safety net should be there in case the local market cannot provide. But after years of tearing down PMQs and selling off DnD land there just isn't enough. Heck even just the shacks on base don't have enough rooms for the yearly FSTE let alone APS so you could worst case go on IR


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jun 2022)

Some countries do conscription with a lottery as they don't need everyone. You could have a very basic infantry course or better training/job for those that volunteer.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jun 2022)

TheMattHan said:


> I'll speak on the issues myself have noticed.
> 
> 1. Our demographic of recruit has been changing from a more rural individual to someone more urbanized who may not see the same alure in living 30 minutes from the closest real "settlement" of 30k people as someone who grew up with that.
> 
> ...


Good points.  Thanks. 

How does the CAF address the NIMBY factor for #1?  Canadians don’t mind someone coming to shovel them out of a snow storm, or bag sand for their flooding property, or help fight a fire near them, but those big noisy bases with loud equipment and planes and stuff?  Those bases would also take up prime land that Canadians would rather see used for more housing, etc.

2 - agreed.  Base not bad out the gate, but non-officer specialist/technology doesn’t seem to get the same support as say doctors, dentists, lawyers and pilots. Agree a compensation structure needs to be more wide-sweeping.

3 - a classic negative feedback loop, worsening as the loss increases.  The ‘do more with less’ is a classic own goal, but much is the CAF’s own doing with the ‘can do’ attitude.  That said, I remember the Navy’s “we’re going to stop sailing for a bit” and the government screamed blue murder that ‘we give you money, you bloody well sail!’ without appreciating the need to recover out of a vicious cycle. Folks are quick to point to this attempt to reconstitute as a transactional betrayer to the Canadian taxpayer, but that’s a pretty myopic view. Perhaps a less drastic ‘we stop sailing tomorrow for X months!” and more a “there’s only so much depth, so we’ll prioritize
Like this until we have more people…”

4 - a fundamental issue of a nation treating its military like civil servants who happen to have a slightly different dress code. The whole “but we HAVE to charge military families the same for housing as civilians are paying, it wouldn’t be fair otherwise!” thing, yet paying lip service to the other side of the two-way street covenant of looking…no…caring for our service personnel and families.  Not sure Canada/Canadians are actually ready to see their service members treated much more specially than them. 

Thanks for your thoughts, ThaMattHan.


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Jun 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Bermuda does this, it works for them as it is more to address the rich/poor divide in their country. It is the only way to achieve this perfect representation of society. But I would always argue against it as to me conscription is inherently wrong.


Bermuda has recently discontinued conscription. As a result, and due to that island’s economy and cost of living pushing up wages, their new volunteer soldiers are now paid extremely well. A Bermuda Regiment Corporal makes slightly more than a Canadian Warrant Officer — but he will spend every penny.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Good points.  Thanks.
> 
> How does the CAF address the NIMBY factor for #1?  Canadians don’t mind someone coming to shovel them out of a snow storm, or bag sand for their flooding property, or help fight a fire near them, but those big noisy bases with loud equipment and planes and stuff?  Those bases would also take up prime land that Canadians would rather see used for more housing, etc.



It's largely a marketing/ stakeholder engagement and programming problem, not a NIMBY problem, IMHO.

We tend to do a great job at looking and working inwards, and then bitching when the civvies don't bow (or even notice) when we enter the room.

Just like other large organizations that need to stay connected with their stakeholders to secure social license to operate, we need to do more, and better, to connect with Canadians in a meaningful way.

And we can't rely on the Reserves to 'tick the box' for us. We're much worse, in many ways, than the Reg F is at that kind of stuff. For example, I can't think of any time when we made an attempt to reach out and bring in the elected representatives from our catchment areas for social events or other 'getting to know us' type activities. 

You'd think that a regiment with over 100 years of history in the same community would have those bridges well established, but it was much the opposite I'm sad to say. It's not surprising, really, as the CO's job, available resources and training are not geared towards any of those requirements.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jun 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Bermuda has recently discontinued conscription. As a result, and due to that island’s economy and cost of living pushing up wages, their new volunteer soldiers are now paid extremely well. A Bermuda Regiment Corporal makes slightly more than a Canadian Warrant Officer — but he will spend every penny.



With the current COL in Canada, I’m spending every penny as well.  Times have changed in Canada since 2015…even with a few meagre pay increases.


----------



## TacticalTea (21 Jun 2022)

Late reply, but I was at sea. Anyhow.


btrudy said:


> It's unethical to simply accept that acceptable representation by various demographic groups at "leadership" levels should be represented based upon the demographics of the organization as a whole, when systemic discrimination drives certain types of people to either leave the organization early or not join in the first place, while others "fit right in".
> 
> You can't use the bigotry inherent in the system to justify the bigotry inherent in the system.


If you're gonna state that something is ''unethical'', you ought to explain why. There is no reason to believe that men and women have the same priorities and wants in life. There is no reason to believe that urban and rural Canadians have the same priorities and wants in life. There is no reason to think that Anglos and Francos in this country have the same priorities and wants in life. There is no reason to think that immigrants and native Canadians have the same priorities and wants in life.

You're engaging in cultural marxism. The idea that every one is exactly the same at the individual level and should be assimilated to nothing more than just another member of their cultural group. The reality is that no, groups are not homogeneous and individuals are not firstly and above all, members of groups. They are human beings with individual experiences. Neither individuals nor groups are mirrored in one another. One would think you would understand that, given how much you preach about diversity, but it seems it might be just for show as Eye in the Sky pointed out. A good photo op. 


btrudy said:


> Likewise sexual assaults or harassments, which in the CAF are predominately targeting women, are poorly investigated, leading many victims to leave due to the lack of support, or to be revictimized when they do report and instead the system as a whole moves to target them and smear their reputation, rather than the person who actually deserves it (for this, see the 2nd most recent article by he-who-shall-not-be-named-on-this-site-because-the-moderators-couldn't-be-bothered-to-remove-defamatory-comments). Likewise a similar approach is often taken against folks who try to support victims, as we saw with LCdr Trotter.


I don't know what organization you work for, but seemingly not the CAF. Op Honour content and values are instilled at every step of training, assessed for every PER, and expected on every board. I understand the perception you may have developed by reading the news, but the cases that have come up recently were decades-old. Nothing to do with current culture in the CAF.  


Booter said:


> Actually the “union” is making it slower to deal with senior NCOs accused of sexual misconduct. More assistance on appeals, more appeals, more foot dragging.
> 
> It’s lengthened the process and protects the people accused of Conduct violations.


Sounds like an argument in favour of unions. Canadian society in recent years seems to have forgotten about simple concepts like due process, the rule of law, and the presumption of innocence. 



TheMattHan said:


> I'll speak on the issues myself have noticed.
> 
> 4. A lack of support to the member. As a soldier I expect a few things. To be paid in a timely manner and if due to the whims of a spreadsheet I'm posted across the country the army has a roof for me to live under. I might be an extremist is saying this but I think a military should have enough places for every member/family if they have one to live doesn't need to be fancy but that safety net should be there in case the local market cannot provide. But after years of tearing down PMQs and selling off DnD land there just isn't enough. Heck even just the shacks on base don't have enough rooms for the yearly FSTE let alone APS so you could worst case go on IR


The current situation is disgustingly appalling. Nellies block in Esquimalt is a national disgrace. Yet nobody cares.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jun 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> It's largely a marketing/ stakeholder engagement and programming problem, not a NIMBY problem, IMHO.
> 
> We tend to do a great job at looking and working inwards, and then bitching when the civvies don't bow (or even notice) when we enter the room.
> 
> ...


D&B, are you talking pam-CAF, or is that more an Army comment?

So no issue finding new ranges then, for example?  Just a matter of some positive public engagement and all will be well again?


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> D&B, are you talking pam-CAF, or is that more an Army comment?
> 
> So no issue finding new ranges then, for example?  Just a matter of some positive public engagement and all will be well again?



Being Army, my focus is probably limited to that particular 'silo'.

And funny thing... if you have met (engaged with) the people who manage Crown land in the provincial government, and they trust you, they just might be able to help with some advice about the range thing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jun 2022)

> It's not surprising, really, as the CO's job, available resources and training are not geared towards any of those requirements.



A long while back, when I was more generously inclined to support LCol as an appropriate rank for a tiny militia unit, it was on the basis that the engagement job just described is the one a CO should be doing, and maybe a LCol's pay (and status-by-rank) was appropriate for that.

I remember remarking a short while back something to the effect that a Res F unit should have two elements: a PR element and a training/development element (everyone else, but primarily A Coy/Sqn/Bty/Etc).  The PR element should be a handful of people including the CO, with responsibility for all the outward facing engagement stuff, but to do it without creating taskings for the training/development element (ie. not constantly interrupting them with requests for work parties) UNLESS the activity does not coincide with training/development AND there are Class A soldiers willing to do GD work for a little extra pocket money.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Jun 2022)

That sounds a whole lot like my Unit Visibility Team.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jun 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> That sounds a whole lot like my Unit Visibility Team.



Tell us more... it sounds like you might have figured it out (unlike the self-absorbed socio-paths I had to suffer through time after time)


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jun 2022)

Roughly speaking, the UVT is part of the Public Affairs section. 1 x PAO, 1 x PO2 Recruiter, 1 x MS, 1 x S1. Duties involve covering both internal and external events, and ensuring that these events are given the widest public dissemination. Further the PAO maintains close contact with the local MPs and MLAs. There is also the advantage of MB having an MLA who functions as the provincial military liaison that we can tap in to. We also maintain close contact with employers through CFLC. We invite top employers to either our annual range shoot, or our fall exercise so they can see what the sailors are up to. This has paid dividends for sailors who require time off to attend training or taskings.

The UVT, through the PAO reports to the XO for routine matters, and to me for all external comms etc.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> Roughly speaking, the UVT is part of the Public Affairs section. 1 x PAO, 1 x PO2 Recruiter, 1 x MS, 1 x S1. Duties involve covering both internal and external events, and ensuring that these events are given the widest public dissemination. Further the PAO maintains close contact with the local MPs and MLAs. There is also the advantage of MB having an MLA who functions as the provincial military liaison that we can tap in to. We also maintain close contact with employers through CFLC. We invite top employers to either our annual range shoot, or our fall exercise so they can see what the sailors are up to. This has paid dividends for sailors who require time off to attend training or taskings.
> 
> The UVT, through the PAO reports to the XO for routine matters, and to me for all external comms etc.



That sounds wonderful, and wholly unlike anything I've ever seen unfold over the past three decades with the Army. Occasionally, a photographer might turn up, but that was about it AFAIK.


----------

