# Ordered "to get a phone" / Contact Information [Merged]



## max32xmax (21 Dec 2014)

After recently damaging my personal phone, a hypothetical discussion took place with regards to an expectation that we are to be available for contact off-duty or on leave.

Before going further, I made it clear that it was my intention to replace the damaged device within a reasonable time frame, and that as a professional, I should also be expected to reasonably return any work-related call. Turns out one of the other guys in the room was recently threatened a charge after the MWO was unable to reach him on his cell (it was something trivial, but the MWO was pretty annoyed).

It's been my belief that members are (or should be) only legally obligated to respond to an issued pager or duty phone, with the exception of a superior officer ordering us to obtain a civilian phone (which could then be asked for in writing and financially reimbursed). I don't think I have any legal obligation to repair my damaged phone, just like the other guy had no obligation to replace (or even answer) his. The argument of my superior was that things are different because we are in the emergency services (i.e. base fire hall), and that the CF needs a reliable way of getting ahold of us when off-duty or on leave.

I don't intend on challenging the status-quo (mostly because I don't want to see us wind up with issued devices 24/7), but any idea where this might be spelled out? Any truth to the written order & reimbursement thought?

Thanks,

Max.


----------



## REDinstaller (21 Dec 2014)

Do you have a land line? If no and you rely solely on your cell phone, then I fully side with your supervisor. It's your responsibility to have a contact method. Just like if you have a text only plan, that is not a sufficient means of contact. You'll never get re-imbursement for a civi phone, because then it becomes a military device. When soldiers are on IRU they must have a sufficient method of contact. If you don't want to be contacted out side of work hours then don't work with us, calls at odd hours are part of the territory. Even more so for us WOs and up


----------



## McG (21 Dec 2014)

You have an obligation to provide functioning contact information to you chain of command.  If you choose not to answer your phone because the government did not give it to you and you are screening your calls, then your CoC would have good cause to correct you.

If you fail to keep your contact information current with your CoC, then they would again have good cause to correct you.

You will not get reimbursement for a civi phone.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Dec 2014)

Just for (my own) future reference, do you guys have something to back that up?


----------



## REDinstaller (21 Dec 2014)

Not right now, but it's common place to have a contact plan for your troops. Can't claim ignorance out of laziness


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Dec 2014)

I agree, we had to deal with something similar recently and for the lack of substantiation, we ended up loaning the person a beeper so we had means of contacting the person.


----------



## REDinstaller (21 Dec 2014)

I'd be looking at that situation hard before issuing any device. Because now you're unit has set precedence and you need to be careful of that. Why not just keep them in the duty centre until they sort themselves out if on IRU or stand by. That's what my SSM was willing to do with this young trooper in question when we found out he had a text only phone and no intent of changing it


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Dec 2014)

To be honest, it was a one off (the individual was a special case), and the time and effort spent into looking deep wasn't worth it, especially since we have quite a few extra beepers and we were in a crazy busy op  tempo.  I didn't want my people wasting any time.  

One thing for sure, I wasn't going to recommend a Blackberry...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Dec 2014)

I'm with Max...............I'd like to see that in writing somewhere.
YOU need me then YOU supply the way to do that......................


----------



## Franko (22 Dec 2014)

Easy peasy....you'll be ordered to move into the shacks if you don't want to get a phone for _your _convenience of being contacted. 

Seen it done, along with administrative measures. Mind you this mouthbreather was on his way out and the CoC had enough of his bullshit.


----------



## max32xmax (22 Dec 2014)

Yup. Although the bureaucrat/doctrine in me says 'you give your team the tools that you expect them to use', the realist quickly answers 'we can always make an example out of teammates that make things difficult’. Case in point for the difficult member above, or giving them a mobile device that _will_ go off once daily until they "sort themselves out". Guess the answer depends on the situation, but I wouldn’t expect whoever gets the duty center treatment to be very motivated [read: possibly toxic] anytime in the near future (just thoughts from reward management / motivation theory). 

Where is the line drawn WRT a reasonable means of contact? Are e-mails comparable to a land-line? Is a phone with a talk plan but no voicemail acceptable? Sparing very limited disposable income, I suppose it comes back to professionalism. While the prompt returning of calls/messages/e-mails is part of this for all of us, and this extends to more than just keeping and reasonably checking a phone plan for certain trades/roles, I wouldn’t hesitate to plan a 6-day backcountry ski tour on my regular 6 off without a leave pass & without directly informing work in my current role & global situation. 

Just my opinion, & looks like there's no pretty black/white answer.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Dec 2014)

I actually sailed with a fellow sup tech and this was his scenario.  The only different mitigating factor was that he was living in shacks and the B Warden or what have you was his poc.  As I understand it we would have to physically get the member too. 

This was back in 2001-2003 on Preserver.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2014)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> I'd be looking at that situation hard before issuing any device. Because now you're unit has set precedence and you need to be careful of that. Why not just keep them in the duty centre until they sort themselves out if on IRU or stand by. That's what my SSM was willing to do with this young trooper in question when we found out he had a text only phone and no intent of changing it



Because that would be an unofficial punishment, likely an abuse of authority and make whoever is doing it a fucktard.


Corrected myself;  I misread your post and thought you meant to keep them on IRU or standby;  if they are on standby/IRU, they should be able to be contacted 24/7.

Another option is to have them free to do whatever, but they must call in to Ops every say, 15 or 30 minutes...likely won't be long before they change their cell plan. 

I am at a unit and in a position that holds Standby regularly.  I have the obligation to be able to be contacted 24 hours a day.  I then, as the member, have a choice to either  (1) provide my cell phone number or (2) sit in my house so I don't miss a call on my landline. Sounds fun.

If I decided to not have either, I'd guess that I'd likely have some type of unpleasant alternative imposed on me during my Standby period.


----------



## Sf2 (22 Dec 2014)

Does that mean phone bills can be tax deductible as an Employment Expense?  :christmas happy:


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2014)

max32xmax said:
			
		

> Sparing* very limited disposable income*, I suppose it comes back to professionalism.



I've noticed with a tiny bit of creativity people who cite very limited income can often cut out a few things like xbox's, online game subscriptions, drinking alcohol every week-end.


----------



## mariomike (22 Dec 2014)

max32xmax said:
			
		

> The argument of my superior was that things are different because we are in the emergency services (i.e. base fire hall), < snip >



It must depend on the organization. Fire and Paramedic emergency services, in the city I worked, had a formal, written and easily understood Standby and Call-Back Policy.


----------



## Franko (22 Dec 2014)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've noticed with a tiny bit of creativity people who cite very limited income can often cut out a few things like xbox's, online game subscriptions, drinking alcohol every week-end.



Citing limited income may result in the CoC taking a close look at your expenditures and then being placed on administrative measures. 

There is absolutely no reason why someone in this day and age can't afford a land line or a cheap cell phone.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm with Max...............I'd like to see that in writing somewhere.
> YOU need me then YOU supply the way to do that......................



As most have grown up with a telephone, and later answering machines, in Canada we had no problems with letting personnel move out of the shacks and maintaining contact numbers at their units.  Where it was not common to have a phone (Europe prior to the late '80s.), Bdes would have personnel delegated as "Alert Recall" who would then have a list of personnel, their addresses and then have to physically go knocking on doors to "Alert" them of any "Recall".  They would check off whether or not a person was "Alerted"; whether they were at their residence or not.  Personnel who did not arrive at their unit in a reasonable time, or not at all, where noted and sometimes Charged.   
If a belligerent member today insists on not maintaining a contact number where they would be notified within a reasonable period of time, then some form of Duty Personnel would be required to fill the task of physically going to the member's place of residence and "Alerting them of a Recall".  Text messaging and email are not necessarily the most economical and efficient way to conduct "Alert Recalls".  If a person can not be contacted at their contact number, and they do not report to their place of duty within a reasonable time, then charges of AWOL may be laid against them.
This is, after all, the military; not some civilian job.


----------



## Haggis (22 Dec 2014)

SF2 said:
			
		

> Does that mean phone bills can be tax deductible as an Employment Expense?  :christmas happy:



You're already reimbursed for this in the form of the 7.5% of your pay envelope defined as the "military factor", which is there to compensate you, in part, for the unique demands of military service.


Edited to correct the rate to 7.5%.


----------



## hotei (22 Dec 2014)

Haggis,

Could you point to the ref that specifies 4%? I seem to recall doing some digging quite a while back and it had it listed as 0.5%.


----------



## mariomike (22 Dec 2014)

hotei said:
			
		

> Haggis,
> 
> Could you point to the ref that specifies 4%? I seem to recall doing some digging quite a while back and it had it listed as 0.5%.



I saw this.

Military Factor

It is important to note that the TC analyses, as applied to the CAF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CAF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers. As of April 1, 1999, the Military Factor stands at 7.5% for non-commissioned members and for general service officers. These recent increases were in recognition of a higher operational tempo and resulting increases in the incidence of separation, and a new component (Personal Limitations and Liabilities), which further recognizes the implications inherent in the military system of unlimited liability. Another less obvious example is the fact that CAF members are not eligible for overtime. To adjust for this in the TC analyses, values of 6% of salary for non-commissioned members and 4% of salary for general service officers are used.

Comparability, therefore, is not a case of making one rate of pay equal to another. Instead, a comparability shortfall is the amount of increase to CAF pay that is needed to equalize the bottom line (dollars per hour worked) between the CAF and the PS values, but only after considering all salary and applicable benefits including unique CAF conditions of service.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/index.page


----------



## Haggis (22 Dec 2014)

hotei said:
			
		

> Haggis,
> 
> Could you point to the ref that specifies 4%? I seem to recall doing some digging quite a while back and it had it listed as 0.5%.



Marionmike beat me to it.  It's actually 7.5% which is intended to cover, among other things, haircuts, uniform maintenance and
attendance at mess functions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Easy peasy....you'll be ordered to move into the shacks if you don't want to get a phone for _your _convenience of being contacted.
> 
> Seen it done, along with administrative measures. Mind you this mouthbreather was on his way out and the CoC had enough of his bullshit.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> As most have grown up with a telephone, and later answering machines, in Canada we had no problems with letting personnel move out of the shacks and maintaining contact numbers at their units.  Where it was not common to have a phone (Europe prior to the late '80s.), Bdes would have personnel delegated as "Alert Recall" who would then have a list of personnel, their addresses and then have to physically go knocking on doors to "Alert" them of any "Recall".  They would check off whether or not a person was "Alerted"; whether they were at their residence or not.  Personnel who did not arrive at their unit in a reasonable time, or not at all, where noted and sometimes Charged.
> If a belligerent member today insists on not maintaining a contact number where they would be notified within a reasonable period of time, then some form of Duty Personnel would be required to fill the task of physically going to the member's place of residence and "Alerting them of a Recall".  Text messaging and email are not necessarily the most economical and efficient way to conduct "Alert Recalls".  If a person can not be contacted at their contact number, and they do not report to their place of duty within a reasonable time, then charges of AWOL may be laid against them.
> This is, after all, the military; not some civilian job.



Yada,  freakin yada,............all I asked was this.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm with Max...............I'd like to see that in writing somewhere.
> YOU need me then YOU supply the way to do that......................



Buellar?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Dec 2014)

Does is say in writing I have to be at work at 07:30?


----------



## Haggis (22 Dec 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Does is say in writing I have to be at work at 07:30?



Quite likely, somewhere in base or unit Standing Orders, it does.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yada,  freakin yada,............all I asked was this.
> 
> Buellar?



You know darn well that you are just being obstinate.   Routine Orders, Standing Orders, the necessity to maintain ORBATS and Contact Lists, etc. all cover this.  

But if you really would like it in written form, and remember that legalese is usually written in a general form to cover eventualities, you can look at the NDA for what constitutes AWOL.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

I am being obstinate...............but so far :crickets:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

George,...your ninja edit about awol cleared everything right up for me..................WHAT?????

What pisses you off so much about wanting to see a regulation anyways??


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I am being obstinate...............but so far :crickets:




Yes you are.  Another little Article from the NDA; Article 88 - Desertion



> Desertion
> 
> Marginal note: Offence
> 
> ...



There you have it in writing.   

Happy?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> George,...your ninja edit about awol cleared everything right up for me..................WHAT?????
> 
> What pisses you off so much about wanting to see a regulation anyways??



As they say; ignorance of the Law is no excuse.  You have TI to know that there are regulations to cover this, even if you haven't seen the regulation in print (Black and White).  In most cases Article 88 - Desertion under the NDA would not be laid against a person as being rather extreme, but rather a charge of AWOL.  The case in question is covered under Article 88 in that the person has done an act or omited to do anything the natural and probable consequence of which act or omission is to preclude the person from being at his place of duty at the time required.  It is right there in "Black and White".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

I'm always happy.
Still haven't seen a thing that answers what I asked to be presented, but damn, I'm happy.

EDIT: Yes I have TI but get used to the fact that the kids today are not as stupid as you and I were...........they will ask and, as far as I'm concerned, 'authority' has a duty to present 'black and white'. [to use your words]


----------



## reccecrewman (22 Dec 2014)

SF2 said:
			
		

> Does that mean phone bills can be tax deductible as an Employment Expense?  :christmas happy:



That's a negative.  Just as boot polish, brasso, haircut fee's and razor blades are not tax deductible.  Despite the fact that you are expected to show up for work with a regulation haircut, (which generally requires more monthly visits to a barber than your average civvie incurs) clean shaven, (which also may require you buying more blades than your average civvie in a month since skipping a shave isn't an option) with a shiny cap badge, (in some cases) and black boots, (in my day anyway, I've seen a lot of the troops in the new issue boots and cannot speak informed on their maintenance and care) the Military is not in any way mandated to keep you in personal sundries.

I believe it  is every soldiers responsibility to maintain a serviceable, reliable means of comms that their C-o-C can count on to reach you for whatever reason they deem appropriate.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> I believe it  is every soldiers responsibility to maintain a serviceable, reliable means of comms that their C-o-C can count on to reach you for whatever reason they deem appropriate.



..and I agree with you.   Max asked, and I seconded, the question of 'show me'.

It seems to have some tied up in knots...........


----------



## McG (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce, it is the CAF, not a unionized PS job.  Not every lawful command is published and searchable on the Internet.  The CO of a unit with a readiness requirement can tell his guys that they will maintain a means of contact.  If someone wants to play smart and tell the CO that the unit needs to provide the means of contact if the unit wants to contact him after hours, then the CO has the ability to provide those means in the form of a room in the shacks where the member is obligated to reside.  You can google that obligation to reside in quarters under QR&O 28.01(2), but the delegating of authority to COs is in CFAO and not something that can be found on the web.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and I agree with you.   Max asked, and I seconded, the question of 'show me'.
> 
> It seems to have some tied up in knots...........



 :

I showed you and you refused to believe it.  Not much one can do if someone does not accept what is written in the NDA.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Dec 2014)

I am not sure that it says anywhere that one has to have a phone while in the CF.  However, this is not 7-11 or Walmart- you do not just punch out at the end of your 8 hour shift and go home. You are liable for service at odd hours and unexpectedly. Therefore, the real onus is that you either have to be contactable or you must regularly check in with your unit (how regularily would depend entirely on the nature of your unit). If you are on a Ship and are Ready Duty Ship, you have a certain amount of time to report for duty.  It is not unreasonable for a CO to generally know the whereabouts of his personnel at all times.

If you are on some form of unit official duty, then yes, it would not be unreasonable to be issued a phone or BB.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2014)

National Defence Act

Article 88, Para 2, Sub Para e.

"A person deserts who:  

while absent with authority from his place of duty (ie. on Leave or outside duty hours), with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty (In this case not provide reasonable contact information in which to be contacted for recall in a reasonable period of time.), does any act or omits to do anything (ie. give a contact. 'phone' number) the natural and probable consequence of which act or omission is to preclude the person from being at his place of duty at time required (ie. Alert Recall)."

A chargable offence under the NDA.  

What more do you need?


Again, I am sure that this drastic a Charge would not be laid, but rather the lesser charge of AWOL or perhaps that of not obeying a lawful command.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> means of contact.




Many of different ways that can happen..........I believe the OP had a discussion where an individual was threatened with a charge because he didn't answer his cell phone [ for a trivial reason] and many agreed with it.   So, we've gone from land lines, expected to answer if you're home, to cell phones, expected to answer 24/7 [heavens forbid you go swimming].  And if the next technology puts recallable chips into someone's arms we just say "Hey, that's how it is?"

Bear in mind I'm not discussing 'ready requirements' here' and smartasses will always get there's...................I'm talking Joe Average who actually wishes a bit of a life when he's not out in the field?   Seriously, "Bloggins, we're ordering you to have a home phone and a cell phone?"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

George,....stop highlighting 'reasonable"............that's not your forte.


----------



## TCM621 (22 Dec 2014)

It really boils down to two factors:

What is your recall requirement and what is a reasonable definition of "able to get a hold of". 

If you are on 24 hour stand by, recallable at anytime on short notice then the Cf should provide you with a duty phone or paper. 

If you are on 24 hours notice to move you should have some way to be notified in which you could reply with the day.  This could be an online voice mail, land line with answering machine, cell phone etc. 

Otherwise, as long you are capable of checking in every 3 days, You should be good. (my understanding is the entire CAF is basically on 72 hour notice) if you work 8 to 4 Monday to Friday, you should be good. 

That said, anyone who doesn't have a phone, cell or land line, has issues. Either he is a Luddite who pines for the days of the pony express, or he has serious financial issues which should probably be explored. Or he is an asshat .


----------



## McG (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Seriously, "Bloggins, we're ordering you to have a home phone and a cell phone?"


I Interpreted the opening scenario to be that the individual had neither land line more cell phone.  It is not uncommon that young troops have only a cell phone these days.  If it goes down, they suddenly have no means of contact (that also seems to happen a lot), and the onus is on the member to re-establish that means of contact.


----------



## reccecrewman (22 Dec 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If you are on 24 hour stand by, recallable at anytime on short notice then the Cf should provide you with a duty phone or paper.



I have to disagree.  An Infantry Company on IRU should not have to provide a duty phone or pager.  The CAF simply does not have the funds to splurge on supplying Units with cell phones or pagers.  As you also mentioned, anyone without a cell or landline most likely has some serious financial issues that may require an administrative review.

Something like a Battalion Duty Officer/NCO should certainly be provided with communications as I know my former Unit did, but to expect the Units to provide mass communications for all it's soldiers on IRU is not economically viable as Units simply would not have the funds in their respective budgets for such a luxury.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Otherwise, as long you are capable of checking in every 3 days, You should be good. (my understanding is the entire CAF is basically on 72 hour notice) if you work 8 to 4 Monday to Friday, you should be good.



I think there is a lot of misconception of when we are 'on duty', 'working', people think on Class B, C or Reg force they are not subject to duty at whatever times.  

This is the world as I believe it to be for anyone serving other than Cl A PRes, based on the web of CF, Command, Base and Unit policies I've seen over the years:

1)  You are either on leave, or you are technically on duty.  

2) During all that time you aren't on leave, and technically on duty, you are NORMALLY only required to be AT your place of duty during (what are supposed to be) published working hours, or during any scheduled event/time/shiftwork schedule, etc.

3) despite the published NORMAL duty/working hours for units, there is a requirement to work outside those hours and mbr's are expected to work then.  There is no such thing a 'overtime'; we are already paid for it in the X/Military Factor in our pay.  

4) You have a responsibility to provide your CofC with accurate contact information - because if you aren't on Leave with a signed leave pass, you are technically available 'on duty' even during the times you are not required to be at your place of duty/work.  If I don't have a weekend leave pass in and am sitting home on Sunday, the CO doesn't have to recall me from leave because I am not ON leave.  I can simply be told to report to work by "X time".

I'd be curious to see how a challenge to this would be reviewed by the MEGRC and what their analysis of the various policies and regulations would produce in the F & R;  I'd bet a months pay it would result in "there is a requirement to be avail for duty anytime a mbr is not on a leave pass, there is a requirement for the CofC to be able to contact members, and therefore the mbr must be able to provide means of contact".

If I had a member who refused to get a landline or cell phone and provided their home address for a POC, I'd be advising them they'd better remain at that exact location at any and all times they are not on a signed leave pass.  Having a cell phone is really for MY convenience, not the CFs - as I said I hold Ready status/standby regularly and often for a week or more at a time.  Providing my cell phone means I can leave my home and still meet my duty requirements.  

WAY too many B/C Class and Reg Force mbrs today think they 'have an 8 to 4, Mon to Fri' job.  I recall years ago while at a CBG HQ, being told by Cl B mbrs they 'weren't able to work on the weekend of the Bde EX' as I was the HQ "S & D" force 2 I/C.  And was told "well, I won't be here, I don't work extra".  This was another Sgt saying this to me.  I wanted to laugh, I wanted to hit the mbr with something for such fucktard-like thinking, but I elected to have them discuss their availability with the HQ Sgt-Major.  Problem solved.   ;D


----------



## reccecrewman (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> EDIT: Yes I have TI but get used to the fact that the kids today are not as stupid as you and I were...........they will ask and, as far as I'm concerned, 'authority' has a duty to present 'black and white'. [to use your words]



From the QR&O's;
1.12 - REGULATIONS AND ORDERS TO BE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS

A commanding officer shall cause regulations and orders issued in implementation of the National Defence Act to be readily available to all members whom they concern.

So there it is in black and white.... Max is certainly within his lanes to ask, and Bruce backing him up is to his credit.  There's always the argument of "Well, common sense should tell you....." but his request for something in black and white spelling it out exactly is not wrong.

At the same time, I can also see where George is coming from, and I agree (as does everyone else whose posts I've read, that part doesn't seem to be in doubt) that all members should keep serviceable comms with their C-o-C, but the original query is certainly valid...

Perhaps individual Units should amend their Regimental Standing Orders to state the obvious in black and white?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2014)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> From the QR&O's;
> 1.12 - REGULATIONS AND ORDERS TO BE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS
> 
> A commanding officer shall cause regulations and orders issued in implementation of the National Defence Act to be readily available to all members whom they concern.
> ...



Can't speak for all units, but there is a Squadron Order where I am posted that outlines the requirements for contact info, recall, increased ready state/standby crews, etc.

All unit members, regardless of trade, are required to read Sqn Os upon arrival, and Sqn O's that are amended are emailed to the entire Sqn once amended.  Pretty hard to claim "I didn't know!" at my unit.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Dec 2014)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> At the same time, I can also see where George is coming from, and I agree (as does everyone else whose posts I've read, that part doesn't seem to be in doubt) that all members should keep serviceable comms with their C-o-C, but the original query is certainly valid...



Allow me to disagree.

First of all, what on earth are "serviceable comms"? Is regular mail serviceable comms? 

We work in an environment where recalls are always possible, and as a result we are paid on a 24hrs/7days/12 months basis, not by the hour. However, even that does not make us slaves at the foot of our master on beck and call. The responsibility of the members is to keep his/her contact information up to date with his chain of command. That's it. It is up to the chain of command to then arrange its recall organization accordingly. This is why, in most military towns, the recall org includes contact info for the various electronic medias in order to reach members not otherwise in touch (just like school closings) and the contact info for the  bars and clubs most popular with the members.

No member can be forced to equip himself/herself with specific means of communication at his own expense. No member of the forces can be ordered to equip himself/herself with a cell phone, no matter how prevalent in society.
It is the member's choice and if he/she elects to do so, then his/her obligation is to provide the info to his C.o.C.

On the other hand, the member has a responsibility to keep in touch with hi/her unit at reasonable intervals based on the status of the unit. If you are on standby, then you either stay within hearing distance of a phone you gave your unit the number of, or you call in at very frequent intervals. 

But if you are home for the evening or the week-end and you unit is on regular 24hrs/48hrs notice, you have no obligation to be reachable. You can feel free to go about your business without a cell phone on: so go ahead, turn it off while you go watch a three hour long movie, or suffer a 4 hours long German opera, or for 9 hours while you are out skiing. You are entitled to that.


----------



## mariomike (22 Dec 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If you are on 24 hour stand by, recallable at anytime on short notice then the Cf should provide you with a duty phone or paper.
> 
> If you are on 24 hours notice to move you should have some way to be notified in which you could reply with the day.  This could be an online voice mail, land line with answering machine, cell phone etc.
> 
> Otherwise, as long you are capable of checking in every 3 days, You should be good. (my understanding is the entire CAF is basically on 72 hour notice) if you work 8 to 4 Monday to Friday, you should be good.



Which of the above ( if any ) would likely apply the military occupation ( Firefighter ) of the Original Poster? My understanding of Standby and Call-Back in emergency services is 90 minutes.

Edit to add from the OP: "The argument of my superior was that things are different because we are in the emergency services"


----------



## Haggis (22 Dec 2014)

So, let's look at another side of this issue.

Bloggins, who has no phone, is sitting at home after work.  The unit gets a call from the Base CWO that he has 50 club level suite tickets to a NHL playoff game for deserving troops.  First come- first served.  But it's after hours and only those troops who anser their phones, get a shot at the seats.

Fast forward to later when Bloggins is watching the game on TV and sees members of his unit, his buddies, sitting in the suites, with free drinks and free food.  One holds up a handmade sign.  "Bloggins - wish you were here!  LOL!!!"  

Karma sucks, doesn't it?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Dec 2014)

Well, your example is not fair:

What if he has a phone, but is in the crapper when the call comes in and he doesn't get it on time?

What if he has a phone, but he is out walking the dog?

And you are only using "Bloggins" because his name starts with B so he would be among the first called. There would be no tickets left by the time we get to "Zucker".

All of this is Karma?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, let's look at another side of this issue.
> 
> Bloggins, who has no phone, is sitting at home after work.  The unit gets a call from the Base CWO that he has 50 club level suite tickets to a NHL playoff game for deserving troops.  First come- first served.  But it's after hours and only those troops who anser their phones, get a shot at the seats.
> 
> ...



Bloggins would notice there is someone of a higher rank (how dare they get a good go) and put in a grievance that his chain of command didn't drive out of their way to his house to contact him while simultaneously dropping the story to the media that troops are getting shafted by leaders.


----------



## Haggis (22 Dec 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, your example is not fair:
> 
> What if he has a phone, but is in the crapper when the call comes in and he doesn't get it on time?


His CSM leaves him a voice mail with 20 minutes to call back.  If he's on the can for more than 20 minutes he should be on sick parade. 



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What if he has a phone, but he is out walking the dog?


Then the dog should be on sick parade.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And you are only using "Bloggins" because his name starts with B so he would be among the first called. There would be no tickets left by the time we get to "Zucker".



What if all the troops whose names begin with C to Y are all bags of hammers?  Maybe Bloggins is actually a far better soldier than common lore leads us to believe.


----------



## reccecrewman (22 Dec 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Does is say in writing I have to be at work at 07:30?



I know the RCD has it there in their Routine Orders the hours of the working day in Garrison and yes, 7:30 P.T is the start of the work day, followed by Showers/Coffee Break at 8:30-9:30, Stables from 9:30-11:30, Lunch 11:30-12:30, Stables/Lectures/Classes 12:30-4:00.

I would imagine all Units are similar.


----------



## DAA (22 Dec 2014)

I don't see this as being anything more than a "liability" to serve scenario.

NDA Sect 33 --->  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-15.html#h-23

Service - Liability in case of regular force

33. (1) The regular force, all units and other elements thereof and all officers and non-commissioned members thereof are at all times liable to perform any lawful duty.

Seems pretty simple to me.  If there is no means by which you are able to be recalled to duty within a "reasonable" amount of time because of the simple fact that you "refuse" to get a phone, then it could very well become an issue of "trust" and or "ethics" in support of the CAF mission.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/statement-of-defence-ethics.page

Personally, I truly HATE getting a phone call, when I'm not tagged for duty and where the CO starts off with the statement "Sorry to be calling but you are the first guy I've been able to get ahold of."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2014)

:goodpost:


----------



## Sf2 (22 Dec 2014)

I guess that then raises the question - barring any unit specific mandated NTM postures, what's considered "reasonable time?"


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Dec 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes you are.  Another little Article from the NDA; Article 88 - Desertion
> 
> There you have it in writing.
> 
> Happy?



George,

How can you say someone has the intention not to serve (all paras of include the act AND the intention) only because the person doesn't have a phone?

Just or the record, I think every reasonable person will agree that they need a phone (as part of any work really), but if you want to legally order someone to get a phone at his expense (or charge someone for not having one), you need more substantiation than what has been provided so far.


----------



## TCM621 (22 Dec 2014)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Which of the above ( if any ) would likely apply the military occupation ( Firefighter ) of the Original Poster? My understanding of Standby and Call-Back in emergency services is 90 minutes.
> 
> Edit to add from the OP: "The argument of my superior was that things are different because we are in the emergency services"


That is a good point.  In this case a pager is a could be a solution. A lot of EMS types carry them when they are on standby. 

Where I work it is common to be on 30 minute standby, for about a month at a time. When we are, a pager is issued for call outs. 

Otherwise, I get a message when I get it.   If it is an emergency where they are recalling everyone, run Papa up the flag pole and make an announcement on the radio. Call everyone you can and go from there. You are bound to miss some but you will get almost everyone. 

I am not defending a guy who refuses to get a phone out of spite but if a guy can't have a phone for awhile, he isn't necessarily deserting. I mean, what was the context here?  Was it a case where the guy was required for an operational reason or was it a matter of his boss wanted to talk to him about administrative matters? These factors make a huge difference.


----------



## donaldk (22 Dec 2014)

Navy side here, when my ship was designated ready duty ship, usually the order was if you were away from your normal method of contact(e.g. a landline, or had none) for 4 hours or more, you had to call in or physically report to the quartermaster and inquire if there was a status change.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Dec 2014)

I think we're all pretty much saying the same things here:

1. There is no requirement to have a telephone;
2. Members must be reachable in a reasonable manner and time;
3. Normal duty hours are not exclusive; and
4. All members, save Class A, are liable for duty at any time.

Where there is no statute that provides the CF order one to have a telephone, all members must accept that they have a responsibility to reconcile the four provisions stated above. Clearly there is some discussion and interpretation to be had regarding what defines reasonable manner and time. 

It's not just about being able to call a member back to the unit, but we don't have to pick fly dung out of pepper. Being able to contact members when they're away from work is also part of looking after their welfare. For example, how long do we accept that a member is "off the grid" before we become concerned that something bad has happened to them? That being said, unless you're part of the command team, there should in most instances be no need to contact members with trivial concerns outside of normal duty hours. Unless you need face time with the member, it can wait.

My final observation would be that there is the real risk that the conscientious may be more frequently tasked than the sh!tpumps, solely because they can be relied upon to return one's calls. Humans being the inherently lazy things we are will default to our reliable personnel first.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2014)

Really guys. Three pages?


----------



## cupper (22 Dec 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Really guys. Three pages?




 :goodpost:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 Dec 2014)

The way I look at it, if something bad happens that they need to re-call the military, (or subunits thereof) you'll probably hear about it on the TV and/or radio before your cellphone/telephone rings.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Dec 2014)

What if I buy a package of wieners the day after their best by date, but then I cross the International Date Line?  Can I safely eat them?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> What if I buy a package of wieners the day after their best by date, but then I cross the International Date Line?  Can I safely eat them?



Kat, there is no time to 'safely' eat ground noses, lips and assholes in a plastic tube.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2014)

Perfect time to inject the Emergency in an Emergency Family Care plan doesn't constitute practice call outs (where half the people sleep through their phone anyways).


----------



## brihard (22 Dec 2014)

I guess I'll just throw in my two cents, since why the hell not?

If you aren't willing to make yourself reachable in the event that you need to be called up for whatever purpose the chain of command deems necessary and appropriate- effing quit and get a job at Home Depot. If you decide that you consider yourself worthy or serving our nation and protecting its citizens, then you can damned well make the minimal necessary effort to be reachable. It's one of the easiest things in the world to do in this modern age, and with a reasonably well compensated job like the CAF offers there's no justifiable claim otherwise. Your'e expectd to get yourself to work, too- whether ou own a car, ride the bus or hoof it is your business; but being recallable is an implicit part of military duty. Don't like it? There's the door.


----------



## TCM621 (22 Dec 2014)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I guess I'll just throw in my two cents, since why the hell not?
> 
> If you aren't willing to make yourself reachable in the event that you need to be called up for whatever purpose the chain of command deems necessary and appropriate- effing quit and get a job at Home Depot. If you decide that you consider yourself worthy or serving our nation and protecting its citizens, then you can damned well make the minimal necessary effort to be reachable. It's one of the easiest things in the world to do in this modern age, and with a reasonably well compensated job like the CAF offers there's no justifiable claim otherwise. Your'e expectd to get yourself to work, too- whether ou own a car, ride the bus or hoof it is your business; but being recallable is an implicit part of military duty. Don't like it? There's the door.


On the one hand, I totally agree but I think the issue is more a question of can you be charged if you are not reachable by phone and if so what would be a reasonable definition of "reachable". If I finally decide to throw my cell in the trash and rely on my house phone do I require voicemail and call display? Remember the 80s when answering machines were rare and no one had call display? Military worked fine then. Hell I even heard it worked in the 70s.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Dec 2014)

Not only did it work in the 70's, but for those of us who lived at the wardroom, or A Block, etc. we usually did not bother getting phone service to our rooms. It was faster to get a hold of those living off base than us in an emergency (especially since we seldom stayed in during the day on week-end or at night)  .


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2014)

So a Priest, a Rabbi and a Minister walk into a bar............................


----------



## dapaterson (23 Dec 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So a Priest, a Rabbi and a Minister walk into a bar............................



Did they have cell phones?  Or pagers?  Were they on call?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Did they have cell phones?  Or pagers?  Were they on call?



A higher calling.


----------



## Pieman (23 Dec 2014)

I had a phone to another area code. I didn't want to switch as I still conducted a lot of work at that number, plus I  was locked into a contract. CoC demanded I get a phone with a local area code. So I just gave them the number to the pay phone at the shacks. *snicker* If they really wanted me all they had to do is knock on my door, or pay the long distance costs to call me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Dec 2014)

Pieman said:
			
		

> CoC demanded I get a phone with a local area code.



I know some of you are making jokes about this but this goes along with my expectations post earlier...............so how far does it go before the stupidity gets reigned in?  

Do any of you think THIS is a [that word again] "reasonable" request?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I know some of you are making jokes about this but this goes along with my expectations post earlier...............so how far does it go before the stupidity gets reigned in?
> 
> Do any of you think THIS is a [that word again] "reasonable" request?



I agree with you Bruce.

Chain of command does a lot of stuff they aren't always in a position to request or do.


----------



## Tibbson (23 Dec 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Does is say in writing I have to be at work at 07:30?



Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Have you read it?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes: Sir?
Capt. Ross: Just flip to the page of the book that discusses code reds.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, well, you see, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I don't know if it's actually...
Capt. Ross: Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I correct?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir.
Capt. Ross: No? Corporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book. No manual or pamphlet, no set of orders or regulations that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross: No further questions.
[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffee takes the book out of his hand]
Kaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: No more questions.

Its made quite clear to people arriving at a unit just what the hours of duty are.  Written down or not, we all know our normal hours of duty.


----------



## Tibbson (23 Dec 2014)

I had an situation similar to this a year ago when my wife and I went on a cruise.  For the leave pass I had to leave my contact info so I provided the ship name, the port of departure, ports we were visiting and even my cabin number.  The leave pass bounced back because there was no phone number on it so I resubmitted it with the ships 1-800 number and directions how they dial that number, enter a credit card number and pick the ship they want to call.  This came back because the OR and my CO stated they had no credit card that could be used in such a way.  Without suitable contact info they were not going to authorize the leave pass so I gave them my email address and told them if there was an issue to just email me.  Of course, I had no intention of paying the $100 for 25 minutes of internet time onboard nor did I have any intention of checking my email while on vacation.  Got the leave pass signed, went on the trip and when I got home I had no emails waiting for me.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Dec 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So a Priest, a Rabbi and a Minister walk into a bar............................


....and the bartender says "What is this? A f*cking joke?"


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> ...........  Got the leave pass signed, went on the trip and when I got home I had no emails waiting for me.



Lucky you.

What would have happened if there were an email or more?


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Dec 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I had an situation similar to this a year ago when my wife and I went on a cruise.  For the leave pass I had to leave my contact info so I provided the ship name, the port of departure, ports we were visiting and even my cabin number.  The leave pass bounced back because there was no phone number on it so I resubmitted it with the ships 1-800 number and directions how they dial that number, enter a credit card number and pick the ship they want to call.  This came back because the OR and my CO stated they had no credit card that could be used in such a way.  Without suitable contact info they were not going to authorize the leave pass so I gave them my email address and told them if there was an issue to just email me.  Of course, I had no intention of paying the $100 for 25 minutes of internet time onboard nor did I have any intention of checking my email while on vacation.  Got the leave pass signed, went on the trip and when I got home I had no emails waiting for me.



Wait, what, there's still places in this world with no phone comms? Who knew?  :facepalm:


----------



## MJP (23 Dec 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Lucky you.
> 
> What would have happened if there were an email or more?



Then he would have missed an email. Not the end of the world.  Unless he is the lynchpin of the entire CAF I think his CoC was absolutely retarded pressing the issue as they did.

I frequently go fishing including fly in fishing with zero comms.  I neither provide a number nor do I care if there is a IRU call out (My unit has a permanent IRU task).  My CoC isn't petty and realizes sometimes they just ain't gonna reach you.  We just ensure that IRU is covered and let people go enjoy their lives away from work.  Magically the CAF doesn't collapse under all that anarchy nor will it.


----------



## Tibbson (23 Dec 2014)

Oh, they had it.  Anyone would have been able to call me IF they were willing to spend $5.15 a minute for the sat phone connection.

Oddly enough, for most of our trip from NYC down to the islands we couldn't see land at all but we were still close enough to get cell signal.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Dec 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Wait, what, there's still places in this world with no phone comms? Who knew?  :facepalm:



Welcome to the Navy world  .


----------



## Shamrock (23 Dec 2014)

I have an issued blackberry as my position requires me to be responsive outside normal duty hours.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Dec 2014)

I don't really see why this required four pages so far. Very few people are in critical positions; even then there is a CoC with acting replacements for a reason.  If there is a real operational demand to be on call, you get a phone/pager.  If you are on a short notice to deploy (ie, Ready Duty Ship, or RDS in the Navy), then it's a case by case on how far you can go (normally within 4 hours, but it's at the CO's discretion and there is usually a CSO associated with it).

Otherwise having an address or some other way to reach someone outside of normal business hours is fine; very little that can't and the things that can't will normally be all over the news or will justify sending someone to look for you.  There is no reason why I or almost anyone else shouldn't be able to unplug and jump in a canoe and toodle around Algonquin park for two weeks with no way to reach me; the system is designed to work regardless.

We are all very little cogs in a very big (Rube Goldberg) machine, and are very replaceable.  It's a bit egotistical to think otherwise.

If you want people to be on call, give them something like pagers, and have guidelines about what your expectations are and any limitations (ie stay sober).  But expecting everyone to be on call 24/7 is unreasonable and totally unnecessary; folks need their downtime.


----------



## Haggis (23 Dec 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I had an situation similar to this a year ago when my wife and I went on a cruise. .....



Please tell us that you only booked the cruise AFTER the leave request was approved.


----------



## cupper (23 Dec 2014)

Quote from: Schindler's Lift on Today at 11:13:04


> I had an situation similar to this a year ago when my wife and I went on a cruise. .....





			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Please tell us that you only booked the cruise AFTER the leave request was approved.



Just let me get a shot of whiskey for my coffee so I can settle in for the next few pages….


----------



## Occam (23 Dec 2014)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I have an issued blackberry as my position requires me to be responsive outside normal duty hours.



Yep, the Wing Commander at one of my postings had a BlackBerry too - and complained quite often (to nobody in particular) that the location that he takes his leave in Newfoundland is hundreds of kilometres outside of his cellular provider's coverage area.  I don't recall it ever stopping the Wing Commander from taking leave, though.


----------



## McG (23 Dec 2014)

MJP said:
			
		

> Unless he is the lynchpin of the entire CAF I think his CoC was absolutely retarded pressing the issue as they did.


Agreed.


----------



## DAA (23 Dec 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I don't really see why this required four pages so far. Very few people are in critical positions; even then there is a CoC with acting replacements for a reason.  If there is a real operational demand to be on call, you get a phone/pager.  If you are on a short notice to deploy (ie, Ready Duty Ship, or RDS in the Navy), then it's a case by case on how far you can go (normally within 4 hours, but it's at the CO's discretion and there is usually a CSO associated with it).
> 
> Otherwise having an address or some other way to reach someone outside of normal business hours is fine; very little that can't and the things that can't will normally be all over the news or will justify sending someone to look for you.  There is no reason why I or almost anyone else shouldn't be able to unplug and jump in a canoe and toodle around Algonquin park for two weeks with no way to reach me; the system is designed to work regardless.
> 
> ...



"Service before self" and trying to reinforce that point........that's why this is dragging on and it's actually become rather interesting with the comments posted so far.  I've had the privilege of seeing both extreme ends of the scale.......

A CO taking leave outside the country, taking his BB with him, resulting in running up a rather large $$$ bill for checking his emails.  Result.....change in policy on BB use when on leave outside the area.

Someone assigned for on-call duty, given both a Cellphone and Pager.  Who decided to turn both off, because "the phone kept ringing and the pager kept going off" and they couldn't sleep.  They even tried their home phone but they had unplugged that too......  Let's just say, a rather "expensive" lesson was learned as a result.

Hell, we don't even know anything about the person who made the original post.  It could have been a Cpl who was told/ordered by their MCpl to get a phone.  But just for the sake of it, take the time to think of things in this context............"If I had to get in touch with the people within my AOR right NOW, how many could I expect to be able to reach if I tried?"


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (23 Dec 2014)

Perhaps this would help?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Dec 2014)

Singapore does recall exercises with announcements in TV and radio.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Dec 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> Hell, we don't even know anything about the person who made the original post.  It could have been a Cpl who was told/ordered by their MCpl to get a phone.





			
				max32xmax said:
			
		

> . Turns out one of the other guys in the room was recently threatened a charge after the MWO was unable to reach him on his cell (it was something trivial, but the MWO was pretty annoyed).


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Dec 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> "Service before self" and trying to reinforce that point........that's why this is dragging on and it's actually become rather interesting with the comments posted so far.  I've had the privilege of seeing both extreme ends of the scale.......
> 
> A CO taking leave outside the country, taking his BB with him, resulting in running up a rather large $$$ bill for checking his emails.  Result.....change in policy on BB use when on leave outside the area.
> 
> ...



I get the concept of service before self, but it shouldn't be extrapolated and applied universally when the reality is 95% of the forces (deployed units aside) don't need to be reachable all the time.  Ship recalls normally hit around 90% of folks reached; there are always a few out on the town, not checking messages, sleeping etc depending on when you do it.  That's why there are backups and redundancies built into the manning.  If you do a real recall it also goes out over all the local radio/tv stations (same as snow closure announcements).  I think if you can get 80% back in to work within 12 hours you are doing pretty good.

Work/life balance is considered important enough to be ranked on PERs; so people need to relax a bit and find a reasonable balance between being on duty and downtime.  When I'm at work I'm fully engaged, but unless something is on the go, I don't normally check my BB after hours, and maybe only once or twice over a long stretch like xmas.  With an NCR desk job, even that is overkill during normal work tempo.  Different on ship, but that's a completely different situation and only for a relatively short period.  My point is, your 'service before self' needs to scale proportionally to your specific units requirements, and with the exception of a very few people, not being able to get a hold of someone outside of work for a day is not the end of the world.

Speaking of which, tis the season to relax and forget about work... Merry Xmas! :subbies:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2014)

Everyone has their own opinion and most of those have been stated more than once.

How about everyone quit guessing. 

If someone has something definite, legal and verifiable.............then it can be posted.

All of this  :argument: is getting really old, really fast.


----------



## stellarpanther (6 May 2017)

Can anyone provide a reference that discusses mbr's providing their unit with contact info?  Although I am a clerk, anything I have seen or been told states that contact info needs to be provided but doesn't specify what type. As far as I'm concerned, a mbr can provide a home phone with voicemail or if someone at home answers they can take a message and forwards it to the mbr and the mbr calls the unit back.  Nothing that I can find says a mbr needs to provide a cellphone number.  We have a mbr in that situation and I'm trying to help him out because his CoC says he needs to give his cell number out against his wishes.  I don't think he does.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (6 May 2017)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Can anyone provide a reference that discusses mbr's providing their unit with contact info?  Although I am a clerk, anything I have seen or been told states that contact info needs to be provided but doesn't specify what type. As far as I'm concerned, a mbr can provide a home phone with voicemail or if someone at home answers they can take a message and forwards it to the mbr and the mbr calls the unit back.  Nothing that I can find says a mbr needs to provide a cellphone number.  We have a mbr in that situation and I'm trying to help him out because his CoC says he needs to give his cell number out against his wishes.  I don't think he does.



It's really that simple. Contact information.

Could literally be anything. There is no regulation or order stating a member must have or provide a cellphone. If that were the case then the CAF would issue out cellphones to every recruit.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 May 2017)

If you need to be in contact 24/7, the CAF will need to issue a blackberry or pager. I see nothing wrong with providing a home landline number that has a voicemail or answering machine. The mbr should be asking their CoC for a reference that states the requirement for a cellphone, or if the unit is willing to cover the cost of subj phone.


----------



## Loachman (6 May 2017)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> If that were the case then the CAF would issue out cellphones to every recruit.



Just like it does with landline phones and facebooks...


----------



## Gunner98 (6 May 2017)

Each unit should have Standing Orders that explains the recall process and notice to move levels of the unit.  The latter will normally dictate how accessible members need to remain.  There was never an issue, in many units that I served with, to provide numbers which were shown as "Unlisted" on published recall lists.  If a unit regularly (quarterly, semi-annually) exercises their recall process then the bugs can be worked out as to where these unlisted numbers can be held - Duty Officer Book, Chief Clerk's files, Supervisor's Division Notes, etc.  There was always a differentiation between unit recall lists, nominal roles, NOK contact forms and social telephone lists, etc.  

In the pre-cellphone era there was sometimes a discussion about how you would contact soldiers who "lived in" quarters but preferred the comfort of their girlfriends loft to their four-man rooms.  That was often settled with a Duty NCO sign-out book or weekend leave passes. For many living off Base the discussion was do I have to pay for a home phone just so that my chain of command could contact me.  Often reasonable means were found to avoid this unnecessary expense unless people were in high-readiness units in which the CO/RSM would say if you can't afford the home phone on top of your rent then we will make a bed space/room in the barracks for you!  Losing living out privileges for single guys was a common experience.


----------



## Ludoc (6 May 2017)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Can anyone provide a reference that discusses mbr's providing their unit with contact info?  Although I am a clerk, anything I have seen or been told states that contact info needs to be provided but doesn't specify what type. As far as I'm concerned, a mbr can provide a home phone with voicemail or if someone at home answers they can take a message and forwards it to the mbr and the mbr calls the unit back.  Nothing that I can find says a mbr needs to provide a cellphone number.  We have a mbr in that situation and I'm trying to help him out because his CoC says he needs to give his cell number out against his wishes.  I don't think he does.



So you're asking for the reference that says pers have to obey lawful commands?


----------



## mariomike (6 May 2017)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Nothing that I can find says a mbr needs to provide a cellphone number.



You may find this discussion of interest,

Ordered to "get a phone".  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/117338.0.html
OP: "Turns out one of the other guys in the room was recently threatened a charge after the MWO was unable to reach him on his cell"
4 pages.


----------



## Occam (6 May 2017)

Ludoc said:
			
		

> So you're asking for the reference that says pers have to obey lawful commands?



I would question the lawfulness of a command that directs a member to provide their cellphone number, when a suitable landline number with voicemail is available.


----------



## Ludoc (6 May 2017)

Occam said:
			
		

> I would question the lawfulness of a command that directs a member to provide their cellphone number, when a suitable landline number with voicemail is available.


CoC: Give me your cell number.

Bloggins: Here is my home number.

CoC: Is that what I asked for?

Bloggins: No, but it is good enough.

CoC: With your land line can I send a quick text during the work day/at lunch to you if I need you to do something or need to pass some information on when we aren't co-located?

Bloggins: No...

CoC: If there is a recall and we need you to return to the unit ASAP is it quicker to call your cell or wait for you to get home and check your messages?

Bloggins: Well, I will probably have my cell on me so...

CoC: If there is an disaster and landlines are affected but cell phones (whose towers contain generators and battery back up) are still working how should I try to contact you?

Bloggins: You should call my cell...

CoC: If we are meeting off base for PT and I get called away/stuck in traffic should I leave a message on your home phone, which you will not be able to check until after work or should I call your cell?

Bloggins: I guess you should call my cell...

CoC: Right, give me your cell number. 

Why do I have to update ORLs when a vehicle's condition is tracked by DRIMIS? Why do I need to keep the parade state current when all the same information can be found in Monitor Mass? Why do we sweep and squeegee the vehicle bay every week, even if we have not used it during that time? Because the CoC said to.

We live in a connected world and your CoC expects to have your cell number. Does that mean they will be calling you all the time? No. Do you need to have your cell on/with you all the time? No. But you do need to provide your cell number when told by your CoC to do so. 

To be quite frank, it doesn't matter if providing your home number instead is suitable. When ordered to do something you do it. Just because you think something is stupid to do does not mean you don't have to do it. Stupid orders are still lawful commands.


----------



## Occam (6 May 2017)

CoC:  Give me your cell number.

Bloggins:  Here is my home number.

CoC:  Is that what I asked for?

Bloggins:  No, but it is good enough.

COC:  With your land line can I send a quick text during the work day/at lunch to you if I need you to do something or need to pass some information on when we aren't co-located?

Bloggins:  No, but if you need to get that work-related information to me, then you can staff a request for me to have a DND-provided BlackBerry or cellphone.

CoC: If there is a recall and we need you to return to the unit ASAP is it quicker to call your cell or wait for you to get home and check your messages?

Bloggins:  If there's a recall, I would have advance notice that we're subject to recall and I would check my voicemail, remotely if necessary.

CoC: If there is an disaster and landlines are affected but cell phones (whose towers contain generators and battery back up) are still working how should I try to contact you?

Bloggins:  If there's a disaster of such a nature that it takes out landlines, the media will be reporting that all military personnel from CFB XXXXX are to immediately report for duty.  Or, you can provide me with a DND BlackBerry.

CoC: If we are meeting off base for PT and I get called away/stuck in traffic should I leave a message on your home phone, which you will not be able to check until after work or should I call your cell?

Bloggins:  If you decide to change the plans for the day after you've already issued instructions in the morning, and you know I'm not checking in with the office after that, then it's your problem how to communicate them to me.  Provide me with a DND-issued BlackBerry.

CoC:  But I want your cell phone number.

Bloggins:   It's my PERSONAL cell phone.  DND is not going to reimburse my airtime, text, or data charges for the amount used for government business.  If you have a CF-related requirement for you to be able to reach me on short notice, then that might be justification for you to have a DND-issued BlackBerry or cell phone provided to me.  Otherwise, I'm not that important that I need to be reached with such a short fuse.

You do NOT need to provide your PERSONAL cell phone number to your CoC unless it's going to be your only means of communication on leave or something like that.  If your role in the CF is sufficiently important that you need to be reached on short notice, a DND-issued device will be provided to you.

"When ordered to do something you do it".  No, when an order is patently wrong, you do not have to do it.  The CF didn't provide your personal cell phone, isn't paying for your personal cellphone, and you're not at the CF's beck and call via your cell phone.  You need to provide contact information sufficient enough to get a hold of you commensurate with the level of readiness you're currently working under.  If you're an on-call tech, and need to be at the work site within 30 minutes of the flare being sent up, that's sufficient justification for a DND-issued cell phone.  If you're not under any heightened requirement for readiness, leaving a message on your home phone should be sufficient if you're expected to work at 0800 the next day.


----------



## stellarpanther (6 May 2017)

In this particular case, they called his house, his wife answered but wouldn't provide the cell number.  She sent the mbr a text which he received as soon as he left his eye appointment and he called the supervisor about 30-40 minutes later.  This wasn't enough for the supervisor because he thought he should have the cell number even though having it wouldn't have made a difference because the phone was turned off while in the appointment.

He has unlimited texting but only 50 minutes daytime airtime but unlimited airtime with his wife on a family plan.

The CoC can order people to do a lot of things but there are still limits to what they can do that some people don't seem to understand.


----------



## Occam (6 May 2017)

That's just wrong.

An order to provide your personal cell phone number is about as lawful as an order to a CF member who doesn't own a cell phone to go out and buy one for all the reasons mentioned above.


----------



## CampCricket (24 May 2018)

I'm retired now but being a military family... I have many family members currently serving. This question came up the other day on personal cell phone use in the workplace and I wanted to know if the policy has changed.

I have a young CPL working for a MCPL who insists that her subordinates use their own personal cell phones so she can be in constant communication with them (and to pass on orders). When she passes on orders, she insists that they respond within 5 minutes to her text messages that she sends to their personal phones She also seems to be oblivious to cell coverage, signal strength, building shielding, service outages, battery strength and the multiple other technical issues associated with cell phone use.

I have only been out a few years - but my understanding is that this is not an authorized form of communications; the use of personal cell phones (as these phones are not issued / maintained / serviced by DND). My understanding would be that by implementing her own internal policy within her shop - she is acting outside her authority. I also see her creating a liability situation for DND. By making this a work policy in her shop she inadvertently makes DND liable for the cost of those phones. Basically - if she wants to hijack people's personal phone for official military work, then DND becomes inherently liable for the cost and therefore would need to be paying everyone's cell bill and maintaining their phones - which is outside of her authority as a MCPL.

Anyone also know of a CFAO or Canforgen that clarifies this issue. Or has this become acceptable standard practice?


----------



## trooper142 (24 May 2018)

Making mountains out of mole hills! 

Explain to me how DND would be liable for the maintenance and costs of everyone's cell phones? Would that then entitle DND to restrict its use? This is a silly arguement, does that mean I have to send a carrier pigeon to inform work I'm sick, because Im not allowed to use my personal cell phone for very basic conversations about minor work incidents? 

It seems to me this MCpl is trying to maintain a good line of communication with their troops, and should be commended, not attacked for "acting outside her authority" I guess the alternative would be to keep all of her troops close by and insist they are present at work to receive section orders at the end of the day! Because that's an effective approach to personnel management! 

This is right up there with the good idea faires who continue to insist on memos instead of using email, or insist on paper copies of leave passes, instead of e signing!

Sorry for the rant, just boggles my mind that we, as an organization, fail to use common sense to move forward.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## PMedMoe (24 May 2018)

I had a cell phone only from about 2008 til I retired in 2015.  I also maintained a landline.  None of my last three units ever got my cell phone number.

If info came out between end of day and next work time, they could call my home phone and leave a message.  Since when did everything get so urgent??

 :dunno:


----------



## NavalMoose (24 May 2018)

This MCpl can go pound sand......is it now mandatory to have a cell phone?


----------



## ballz (24 May 2018)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Making mountains out of mole hills!
> 
> Explain to me how DND would be liable for the maintenance and costs of everyone's cell phones? Would that then entitle DND to restrict its use? This is a silly arguement, does that mean I have to send a carrier pigeon to inform work I'm sick, because Im not allowed to use my personal cell phone for very basic conversations about minor work incidents?
> 
> ...



Cool your jets there, Turbo. You speak of common sense and the like but it appears you aren't using any either. I suspect there wouldn't be an issue if the MCpl was being reasonable about it... but in this case, that appears to be in question. If I had a boss that insisted that I respond to their text messages within 5 minutes, I also wouldn't be playing ball.

We don't need carrier pigeons. We have duty staff if there is an actual emergency and no one can get in contact with the member (suggest they wait more than 5 minutes for a response). If not, get better at passage of info and pass on timely direction at the end of the day (I'm a little perplexed as to why this is an outlandish idea... it has worked pretty well for a century) or wait until the next day when I get back at the same time, same place as always.


----------



## trooper142 (24 May 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> Cool your jets there, Turbo. You speak of common sense and the like but it appears you aren't using any either. I suspect there wouldn't be an issue if the MCpl was being reasonable about it... but in this case, that appears to be in question. If I had a boss that insisted that I respond to their text messages within 5 minutes, I also wouldn't be playing ball.
> 
> We don't need carrier pigeons. We have duty staff if there is an actual emergency and no one can get in contact with the member (suggest they wait more than 5 minutes for a response). If not, get better at passage of info and pass on timely direction at the end of the day (I'm a little perplexed as to why this is an outlandish idea... it has worked pretty well for a century) or wait until the next day when I get back at the same time, same place as always.



I guess we are resorting to name calling now? I may have expressed my point of view, but I never resorted to name calling; unless you consider me calling unnamed people who make ridiculous decisions good idea fairies, name calling? In which case I will apologize.

You're probably right that the MCpl is being a bit unreasonable expecting a 5 minute turn around time but thats arguing semantics really; but let's venture into that for a second. How many troops do you know who purposefully screen calls from blocked numbers, or private numbers? I can personally think quite a few. Maybe this is an issue at this unit, and the MCpl has come up with a solution, albeit not a thoroughly thought out one.

But the real issue posed here was the question of making people respond via their personal cell phones. Did DND reimburse people for a land line back when it was common for every household to have them? Was this landline of theirs an authorized means of communication about military matters such as section orders? I have no idea because I don't have a landline, and I suspect a good number of the troops, including this one maybe, don't either. It is well within reason for you to be expected to be reachable; before with landlines, and now via text and cell phone.

It is absurd to suggest DND cover the expenses of a commonplace method of communication employed by the vast majority of troops. If we use that logic, DND should be providing with a method to get to work and covering that expense! It is faulty logic.

I would suggest maybe someone correct the tenacity of this MCpl, maybe suggest being a little more flexible on turn around times, but her employment of using cell phones to contact members of her section is sound IMO.

Again, just my  :2c:


----------



## blacktriangle (24 May 2018)

If you are important enough that you need to be reached on 5 minutes notice, you'd be issued a phone etc


Most of these "urgent" texts are probably routine administration that can wait...


----------



## trooper142 (24 May 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> If you are important enough that you need to be reached on 5 minutes notice, you'd be issued a phone etc
> 
> 
> Most of these "urgent" texts are probably routine administration that can wait...



I completely agree, but doing routine section orders or routine admin stuff via text is sound leadership IMO.

I have personally, on more occasions than I wish to count, have been sitting at a unit, not allowed to go do personal PT, admin, or professional development because I had to be at section orders at the end of the day; which ended up being, again more often than not, a mix of the following: we are having an exercise 10 months from now(not kidding), PT tomorrow be here at the same time you're always here, nothing to pass on see you tomorrow at the same time you're always here. The list goes on. 

Now before anyone says, well thats just poor leadership. I know, thats exactly my point. This MCpl seems to be attempting to employ better leadership by allowing her troops to be given basic admin stuff via text or phone calls, instead of making them wait around. Again, she's a bit tight with the 5 minute expectation, but that can be worked out with a small chat and suggestion of a more efficient way.


----------



## NavalMoose (24 May 2018)

You have to be able to be contacted...not be on the end of a cell phone 24/7.  There are probably people that have to be, but I doubt a section under a MCpl  falls into that category.  She probably depended on younger generations obsession with the cell phone that is never far away.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 May 2018)

I don't think using modern means of communication is a bad leadership/management tool.  I ask people who work for me to give me their private cell number (never had issues with people not giving it) and in return, I make the deal to only contact them on their cell phone during work hours of after hours if something can't or shouldn't wait till the next day.  It ends up mostly being casual, non work-related texts/calls...


----------



## dapaterson (25 May 2018)

There are precious few in the CAF who need to be on 5 min response times when not on operations.

Maybe, just maybe, a few people need to take some deep breaths.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 May 2018)

CampCricket said:
			
		

> I'm retired now but being a military family... I have many family members currently serving. This question came up the other day on personal cell phone use in the workplace and I wanted to know if the policy has changed.
> 
> I have a young CPL working for a MCPL who insists that her subordinates use their own personal cell phones so she can be in constant communication with them (and to pass on orders). When she passes on orders, she insists that they respond within 5 minutes to her text messages that she sends to their personal phones She also seems to be oblivious to cell coverage, signal strength, building shielding, service outages, battery strength and the multiple other technical issues associated with cell phone use.
> 
> ...



I'd classify that as harassment: 

'Harassment may include the abuse or misuse of authority inherent in the position of an individual.'

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5012-0.page


----------



## ballz (25 May 2018)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> I guess we are resorting to name calling now? I may have expressed my point of view, but I never resorted to name calling; unless you consider me calling unnamed people who make ridiculous decisions good idea fairies, name calling? In which case I will apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BeyondTheNow (25 May 2018)

Folks: If some deep breaths are needed then step back and take one or disengage altogether. There’s a bit of defensiveness creeping in in an otherwise fine discussion, so let’s keep the discussion going and prevent the downward spiral.


----------



## NavalMoose (25 May 2018)

Are CAF members required to have a cell phone if they have a landline?  If the answer is NO, and I'm pretty sure it is, then this MCpl is out of luck as far as having her texts answered...never mind in her 5 minutes fantasy world.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2018)

CampCricket said:
			
		

> I have a young CPL working for a MCPL who insists that her subordinates use their own personal cell phones so she can be in constant communication with them (and to pass on orders). When she passes on orders, she insists that they respond within 5 minutes to her text messages that she sends to their personal phones She also seems to be oblivious to cell coverage, signal strength, building shielding, service outages, battery strength and the multiple other technical issues associated with cell phone use.



Just for clarity;  is this during normal duty hours and are they geo-dispersed or something?  Trying to get an idea of why the MCpl feels this is necessary and what 'problem' is being solved with this, or if this is just her way of 'leading' her folks.  Not that it matters much, really, to me just looking for some context.  Is this a high ready unit?  Or is this just normal day to day ops, people are in the same building?  Is this after duty hours?

The only time anyone would be getting a 'within 5 minutes' reply from me would be if I was on Standby during or after normal duty hours and even then, I'd be expecting a phone call not a text.  My gut feel is along the line of the people who thinks the MCpl is swimming outside her lane.  I also have some concerns about relying on unsecure comm's to pass on 'section orders' and the like.


----------



## Strike (25 May 2018)

Here's my issue with the MCpl passing on orders and such via personal cell phone - could this not become a security issue if said MCpl begins to rely on this exclusively? If there is ever an ATI request, would these members be expected to relinquish their personal cell phones now?

I know it's all highly unlikely, but just highlighting why relying exclusively on personal cell phones is not the best of ideas.  Was there not some mandatory training we all had to do about the control of documents and information that should be coming into play here?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2018)

I was thinking similarly;  this is the MCpls' *ops normal* at home, and she defaults to that on an Op - using a FB messenger group to pass on O Groups, etc.  I think that is a valid and real world concern in this day and age.


----------



## Remius (25 May 2018)

Strike said:
			
		

> Here's my issue with the MCpl passing on orders and such via personal cell phone - could this not become a security issue if said MCpl begins to rely on this exclusively? If there is ever an ATI request, would these members be expected to relinquish their personal cell phones now?
> 
> I know it's all highly unlikely, but just highlighting why relying exclusively on personal cell phones is not the best of ideas.  Was there not some mandatory training we all had to do about the control of documents and information that should be coming into play here?



It could just be:  "Ogroup at 0900 at building H, all ack."  or "New timimg for PT, now @ 14:30.  Bring hockey sticks." 

But yes.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 May 2018)

Back in the day when there were only landlines and some soldiers had answering machines we were called out to deploy with 48 hours notice.  Every member of my unit were contacted and at the hanger with all kit ready to go.  In this day and age there should be no excuse for a member (reg. force/ PRes Class B/C not to be reachable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2018)

One comment to that;  if it's a truly a surprise fan-out, people who didn't know can't be held to account if it happens after duty hours and they aren't immediately contactable.  We are not 'on duty' 24/7 from a legal standpoint, despite what some may argue.  This is why unit COs are supposed to publish 'normal duty hours' in Unit Orders/ROs, etc.  CAF members posted to units in Canada aren't required to have a Leave Pass for weekends and are authorized to travel anywhere in Canada during normal weekends.  If I leave the Sqn at quitting time on a Friday and I am not on Standby/Ready crew, my next 'timing' is 0800 Monday (IAW our Sqn Os).

Similarly, during the week, if I leave at quitting time and 2 hours later they do a recall ex and X amount of people aren't reachable by phone, or aren't home with someone from the unit shows up...c'est la vie.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (25 May 2018)

I've never given out my cellphone number. I have a landline (VoIP based, but services the same function). Most of the time calls go to voicemail because I'm out doing things or I just choose to not answer my phone. 

There's no expectation that every member of the CAF be reachable instantly. There never was. Back before I had a cellphone if someone from work needed to get a hold of me they'd call my house (well mom's house at that time) and likely left a message since I was rarely home. I'd get the message and get back to them eventually. 

I can appreciate the difference if you are on a high readiness task. Then sure, call my cellphone, or give me a blackberry. In most jobs, there's nothing that really truly requires the need to interject into people's home lives. When 4pm hits and the troops go home, you better have a damned good reason to push work into their home space. I've pushed back quite a few times to the CoC who wanted to pass on details of something trivial (ie Ops decided at 1615 that we want to do a Tac Vest inspection). Too bad, if you really wanted them to bring them in, you should have told the Tp WOs before dismissal.


----------



## CountDC (25 May 2018)

soooo - who is Siri??   :rofl:


Call me on my personal cell phone and you will not get an answer. Have answering service for a reason.  My phone number was once posted on a board outside the OR and I started to get phone calls at all hours from Ptes about everything under the sun.  When I realized how they got my number I changed it and didn't give it to anyone. The unit had my DND cell number to call me on and leave a message (no, I didn't answer it outside work hours). 

At one time we even had people that didn't have any phone.  if the unit was put on a possible recall status it was passed on prior to dismissal and then it was the members responsibility to contact the duty staff every X hours to find out if recalled.  Mbrs that had phones understood that they had to stay near them when warned of a possible recall.

As for needing the cell phone number because sometimes in a disaster landlines go down.  Well sometimes in disasters cell towers go down and power lines go down so the cell phone battery dies.  Radio and TV broadcasts don't always reach people for the same reasons.  Guess that is why we used to have a "in case of disaster either contact unit or report in policy".  Amazing how we functioned before computers and cell phones.


----------



## RCPalmer (25 May 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> soooo - who is Siri??   :rofl:
> 
> 
> Call me on my personal cell phone and you will not get an answer. Have answering service for a reason.  My phone number was once posted on a board outside the OR and I started to get phone calls at all hours from Ptes about everything under the sun.  When I realized how they got my number I changed it and didn't give it to anyone. The unit had my DND cell number to call me on and leave a message (no, I didn't answer it outside work hours).
> ...



There's a big difference between the chain of command posting personal contact info as a "de facto" duty line, and members providing the CoC with reasonably efficient methods of contacting them in an emergency.  

There are times when any CAF member might be needed on short notice, and that requirement is built into the compensation structure. It might be a whole unit activated in response to a DOMOP, or perhaps an individual is required to issue out an essential piece of kit to get a soldier out the door on an important last minute task or course.  Maybe a unit appears on your base unexpectedly (due to some admin SNAFU) expecting to draw ammunition and rations and special arrangements need to be made.  Maybe the MSE Op scheduled for that 7pm pickup gets food poisoning, and a replacement needs to be found.  The possibilities are endless.  

When we activated the our Territorial Defense Battalion for the 2013 Alberta floods, telephone service was down in my neighborhood, but internet was working.  So, I was able to get the word out via e-mail and Facebook instant messages.  Additionally, our RV was not our normal place of duty (the Armory) as access to the downtown core was restricted at that point, so there was a requirement to communicate the new location.  The primary reason this all worked was because most members made reasonable efforts to make themselves "reachable" to their CoC using a variety of channels.  If all comms methods had been down, we might have reverted to visiting each member's house, but why would we when there was a viable alternative? 

I am not sure how this works in the other services, but in the Army virtually every unit is implicated in the DOMOPS framework at some level, which means that there is a requirement for units to conduct several fanouts per year.  Why would you force your supervisor to make special arrangements to reach you (ie visiting your house) when a short telephone call, e-mail, or text message would have sufficed?  Theoretically, we are required to achieve 100% accountability on these fanouts. However, in the reserve world we tend to cut them off around the 90-95% mark because we recognize that a portion of our soldiers will be truly unreachable, and I consider that perfectly acceptable for part-timers who for the most part, aren't actually on duty at the time of the fanout. I fully acknowledge that there will be circumstances when RegF members will be unreachable as well, such as leave in a remote location.  Even in that circumstance however, members are required to provide some form of contact information on their leave pass in the event their leave is cancelled.  

The idea of whether the CoC should contact you outside of working hours is a totally different question, but ultimately that is up to the CoC, not the individual.  There are lots of strategies to reduce the requirement to bother members outside of regular duty hours such as sound forward planning by unit leadership, and the establishment of rotating duty structures (duty officer, duty NCO, duty clerk, duty tech, etc.) with DND mobile phones to support the most common off-hours requirements, and a well-led unit will take full advantage of these.  However, at the end of the day, any CAF member could be called to duty at any time.


----------



## NavalMoose (25 May 2018)

No one is saying they can't be called out any time.  Does a member have to have a cell phone if he has a landline....yes or no?


----------



## RCPalmer (25 May 2018)

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> No one is saying they can't be called out any time.  Does a member have to have a cell phone if he has a landline....yes or no?



I would say no, but it is 2018.  To my kids, a phone is a black piece of glass, not a handset connected to a coil of wire on the wall in the kitchen 8).  A member should make reasonable efforts to be reachable.  An order of "you need to buy a cell phone" is likely inappropriate, and perhaps unlawful, but I will defer to the JAGs on that. If that order was code for "you're the only guy I can never get a hold of, and that is starting to annoy me", that is something the member should take seriously.  Context matters. 

I was responding to the broader comments from several posters above who thought it was appropriate to make themselves hard to reach in off duty hours, not providing their cell phone number, not answering the phone, etc..  I simply pointed out several reasons why I thought that was not in line with general conditions of service.


----------



## cld617 (25 May 2018)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> I would say no, but it is 2018.  To my kids, a phone is a black piece of glass, not a handset connected to a coil of wire on the wall in the kitchen 8).  A member should make reasonable efforts to be reachable.  An order of "you need to buy a cell phone" is likely inappropriate, and perhaps unlawful, but I will defer to the JAGs on that. *If that order was code for "you're the only guy I can never get a hold of, and that is starting to annoy me", that is something the member should take seriously.  Context matters. *
> 
> I was responding to the broader comments from several posters above who thought it was appropriate to make themselves hard to reach in off duty hours, not providing their cell phone number, not answering the phone, etc..  I simply pointed out several reasons why I thought that was not in line with general conditions of service.



What context is that? That an expectation has been set because 9/10 mbrs are glued to their phones and the remaining 1 is now at fault of some unwritten indiscretion? As others have said, the military has done fine decades prior to cell-phones existing, they will continue on being able to get the job done.


----------



## RCPalmer (25 May 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> What context is that? That an expectation has been set because 9/10 mbrs are glued to their phones and the remaining 1 is now at fault of some unwritten indiscretion? As others have said, the military has done fine decades prior to cell-phones existing, they will continue on being able to get the job done.



The context is whether that remaining one member was making a reasonable effort to be reachable.  Don't want to buy a cell phone? Fine. Are you answering your landline?  Do you have voicemail? 
 If so, are you checking it a reasonable number of times per day (recognizing that what is reasonable will vary depending on your position, the likelihood of being recalled, the operational readiness of your unit, etc.).  The role of leadership is not just to enforce regulations, but also norms and values such as "mission first", and teamwork which implies a somewhat equitable distribution of tasks, including the unplanned ones.  Not every indiscretion is going to have a line item in QR&Os.  At a certain point, the CoC is completely in their rights to make some demands.  

The military used to get along "just fine" without a lot of things.  Metallic cartridge cases, respirators, PMQs, and body armor come to mind...As to expectations evolving with technology, of course they will.  If a CAF member went on leave in Banff in 1950, they might reasonably not have been reachable until their return to their unit.  Today, that same expectation might exist if a member was on leave backpacking in Nepal.  Again, it is a question of what is reasonable, meaning both reasonable efforts on the part of the follower and reasonable expectations on the part of the leaders.  Those efforts, and expectations will of course, be contextual.


----------



## cld617 (25 May 2018)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> The context is whether that remaining one member was making a reasonable effort to be reachable.  Don't want to buy a cell phone? Fine. Are you answering your landline?  Do you have voicemail?
> If so, are you checking it a reasonable number of times per day (recognizing that what is reasonable will vary depending on your position, the likelihood of being recalled, the operational readiness of your unit, etc.).  The role of leadership is not just to enforce regulations, but also norms and values such as "mission first", and teamwork which implies a somewhat equitable distribution of tasks, including the unplanned ones.  Not every indiscretion is going to have a line item in QR&Os.  At a certain point, the CoC is completely in their rights to make some demands.
> 
> The military used to get along "just fine" without a lot of things.  Metallic cartridge cases, respirators, PMQs, and body armor come to mind...As to expectations evolving with technology, of course they will.  If a CAF member went on leave in Banff in 1950, they might reasonably not have been reachable until their return to their unit.  Today, that same expectation might exist if a member was on leave backpacking in Nepal.  Again, it is a question of what is reasonable, meaning both reasonable efforts on the part of the follower and reasonable expectations on the part of the leaders.  Those efforts, and expectations will of course, be contextual.



This is why we have unit SOP's, to determine how we handle situations like this and lay out the ground rules for the expectations, this is as close to determining what is reasonable as we have. 

I routinely turn my cell off to avoid calls from work, I don't hide it and I'm not afraid to tell my supervisor of this. There's a landline and if I'm needed, call and get lucky or leave a message, I'll check it when I get to it. I've gone from a priority 1 unit where launching aircraft several times a day to actually save lives was the norm, to take many steps back to being in a support unit who has never been involved with an operation of any sort beyond individuals being tasked out. Want to guess which one has the highest expectations as to demanding time of me outside normal working hours? The status quo for some is calling up the Cpl/MCpl they know can get the job done quickly, so they call them routinely, that's not a normality I'm going to help perpetuate. I'm not conceding that because technology improves that the expectation for me to work more hours also needs to increase.


----------



## RCPalmer (25 May 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> This is why we have unit SOP's, to determine how we handle situations like this and lay out the ground rules for the expectations, this is as close to determining what is reasonable as we have.
> 
> I routinely turn my cell off to avoid calls from work, I don't hide it and I'm not afraid to tell my supervisor of this. There's a landline and if I'm needed, call and get lucky or leave a message, I'll check it when I get to it. I've gone from a priority 1 unit where launching aircraft several times a day to actually save lives was the norm, to take many steps back to being in a support unit who has never been involved with an operation of any sort beyond individuals being tasked out. Want to guess which one has the highest expectations as to demanding time of me outside normal working hours? The status quo for some is calling up the Cpl/MCpl they know can get the job done quickly, so they call them routinely, that's not a normality I'm going to help perpetuate. I'm not conceding that because technology improves that the expectation for me to work more hours also needs to increase.



I think we are in violent agreement on most points here.  No where did I say that the expectation would be the same for everyone.  It is going to vary based on a variety of factors to include the operational task of the unit, the level of readiness it is currently in, and the position the member holds.  All I would offer is that the better way to handle the situation you describe above is to work with your unit to help set those SOPs and expectations.  Actively ignoring communications from those individuals with the authority to issue you lawful commands isn't exactly conducive to good order and discipline even if you've "warned" them in advance.


----------



## NavalMoose (25 May 2018)

Another thing that isn't exactly conducive to good order is demanding that your subordinates respond to a text within 5 minutes. I will even concede that the MCpl's Troop all have cell phones as the only means of communication, whether that's the case or not.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2018)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> I think we are in violent agreement on most points here.  No where did I say that the expectation would be the same for everyone.  It is going to vary based on a variety of factors to include the operational task of the unit, the level of readiness it is currently in, and the position the member holds.  All I would offer is that the better way to handle the situation you describe above is to work with your unit to help set those SOPs and expectations.  Actively ignoring communications from those individuals with the authority to issue you lawful commands isn't exactly conducive to good order and discipline even if you've "warned" them in advance.



For the record, as  you are talking a lot from the PRes side of the house, if your soldiers are at home and Cl A and not 'in uniform, etc' that makes them subj to the CSD, they can ignore your several fan outs a year (especially the ones no one is told about) and there's nada you can do about it.

Your examples above about MSE ops getting sick, or someone needing a last minute kit issue, etc.  In the Reg Force, if not all then MOST units on base will have a duty person.  Duty Medical, Duty Supply, Duty Chaplain, standby crews for the flyers, etc etc etc.

Trust me;  I've spent a great amount of time either (1) deployed / away from home or (2) on Ready crew on the weekends when I have not been away.  On the rare weekend I wasn't either away or on Ready crew, the CofCs likelihood of getting ahold of me between 1600 Friday and 0800 Monday would have been SLIM.  Why?  Because I know there's already a crew on standby, and the solution to the Sqn's manning issues, if there are any, are not the complete destruction of my life outside of work.

For all the unforecasted ammo and kit issues, etc, that is what Duty people are for.   :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (25 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> On the rare weekend I wasn't either away or on Ready crew, the CofCs likelihood of getting ahold of me between 1600 Friday and 0800 Monday would have been SLIM.  Why?  Because I know there's already a crew on standby, and the solution to the Sqn's manning issues, if there are any, are not the complete destruction of my life outside of work.



Good thing there wasn't a war that required full mobilization to start on one those weekends to inconvenience you...


----------



## RCPalmer (26 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> For the record, as  you are talking a lot from the PRes side of the house, if your soldiers are at home and Cl A and not 'in uniform, etc' that makes them subj to the CSD, they can ignore your several fan outs a year (especially the ones no one is told about) and there's nada you can do about it.



Well, not quite nada, but we definitely lack the "stick" of the CSD in those circumstances.  We have a hard time getting soldiers out for certain types of tasks, but for the most part we can get them on the phone. This is completely compatible with a part time terms of service model...guys with good civvie jobs don't go on advance party for weekend ex's.  The general concept is that you encourage the people who want to play to stay, and those who don't to move along.  We have other levers such as peer pressure, finding mutually beneficial employment in line with the member's availability, and when appropriate, ED&T or transfer to the Supp Res.  



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Your examples above about MSE ops getting sick, or someone needing a last minute kit issue, etc.  In the Reg Force, if not all then MOST units on base will have a duty person.  Duty Medical, Duty Supply, Duty Chaplain, standby crews for the flyers, etc etc etc.
> 
> Trust me;  I've spent a great amount of time either (1) deployed / away from home or (2) on Ready crew on the weekends when I have not been away.  On the rare weekend I wasn't either away or on Ready crew, the CofCs likelihood of getting ahold of me between 1600 Friday and 0800 Monday would have been SLIM.  Why?  Because I know there's already a crew on standby, and the solution to the Sqn's manning issues, if there are any, are not the complete destruction of my life outside of work.
> 
> For all the unforecasted ammo and kit issues, etc, that is what Duty people are for.   :2c:



I completely agree that properly managed duty rotations can mitigate a lot of the unplanned tasks that come up, and your desire to protect some degree of work life balance.  We spend a lot of time managing that in the PRes because if you create a schedule that is too packed, most soldiers will start to pick and choose what they show up for, and the most committed ones will simply give up all of their weekends and burn out.  

I guess all I would say is that if the system was working properly, your CoC would know to leave you alone, and that you would answer any call from them because you have some confidence that if they are calling on the weekend, it must be important.


----------



## Sub_Guy (26 May 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Good thing there wasn't a war that required full mobilization to start on one those weekends to inconvenience you...



Come on, 99% of the weekend phone calls are for bogus events.  We all know that if shit starts going down on a Saturday that we can expect to be contacted.   However we do have high readiness crews and 12 hour standby folks to deal with these weekend wars, they’ll be contacted first.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (26 May 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Come on, 99% of the weekend phone calls are for bogus events.  We all know that if crap starts going down on a Saturday that we can expect to be contacted.   However we do have high readiness crews and 12 hour standby folks to deal with these weekend wars, they’ll be contacted first.



+1

Would full mobilization really be done just by cell phone? Why not utilize radio, television, email, have the MP's go door to door to notify people, etc. Cell phones aren't the only form of communication.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 May 2018)

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> Would full mobilization really be done just by cell phone? Why not utilize radio, television, email, have the MP's go door to door to notify people, etc. Cell phones aren't the only form of communication.



Fully agree.

Let's face it, with the ubiquitous, 24/7, in your face news reporting on all possible platforms of our current world, is anyone really going to miss the fact that a major event requiring the CAF right away has occurred? And wouldn't we all rush back to our post, or at the very least contact our home base to find out the plan for the unit we serve in, without the CAF even having to bother trying to contact us? 

If such major event took place, I don't think that the few of us who might be out of connection with the world on that specific day and fail to report in would make any difference in the outcome.  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 May 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If your boss is calling you on weekends for unforecasted or stupid crap, you have a leadership problem, not a phone problem.



You're 'assuming' things;  if someone from W Ops calls me they aren't my boss, but they might be looking for someone for a last minute flight functional or test flight.  Regardless...there is a STANDBY crew on call from after duty Friday until morning brief Monday.  That is their job, not mine on the weekends I am not on standby.  If that wasn't the case, why am I allowed to go to say, Toronto, or Ottawa for the weekend if I am not on standby?  Not only am I allowed, I don't even have to tell anyone.  Because I am not on duty and not expected back to the Sqn until Mon morning.  The CAF Leave Policy Manual doesn't agree with your suggestion we are all 'on duty' 24/7/365.   



> If you willfully ignore any sort of work phone call after 4 pm, then I'd suggest you have somewhat of a dedication issue and that member should consider transferring to the PRes and work Class A. We're paid a salary for 24/7/365. If you don't want phone calls on weekends, put in a leave pass and make the CO cancel it to bring you in. When they get tired of constant weekend leave passes, can take that opportunity to address work/family balance with your chain of command. Being passive-aggressive and ignoring your phone isn't helpful.



- NO ONE in the CAF is 'on duty' 24/7/365.  No one.  
- IAW the CAF Leave Policy Manual, weekend leave passes are not required.  At my Wing, the OSS Orderly Room (Operations Support Sqn) do not process weekend leave passes because all it does is create paperwork that they don't have time for.  
- some operational units are very busy and also not manned 100%.  the mission goes on, however.  When you have a Sqn that has 1 crew deployed, 1 crew getting ready to deploy, and 1 crew on leave from deployment for several years, the people who aren't *deployed/deployment leave/deployment work ups* are the ones holding the Standby crew stuff 99% of the time.  If you are either a (1) crew commander (2) TACNAV or (3) LEAD AES Op, you are a rare commodity and find yourself in demand more than you can likely imagine.  Those are all required crew positions and appointed by the CO; no everyone holds those appointments and you can't just 'appointment more people' to flush the numbers out.

Here's a little snippet of time for you, you can compare your personal op tempo over a 6 month period for comparison to what I and others at my Sqn lived at one point not long ago:

Jan - Mar:  deployed, CJOC Op.
Apr: post-deployment leave
May:  reintegration training, ex prep, out of province for Ex MG/MF 2nd half of the month.
June:  away on Ex MG/MF 1st half of the month.   home less than a week, deployed OUTCAN, CJOC Op.

My crew finished off that year deployed again Oct - Dec and into Jan.  I think we put in our fair share of 'duty weekends' over that time.  

I've got ZERO issue not answering my phone on weekends I am not on the *weekend* standby/Ready crew.  If WWIII is going to happen, I don't suspect it will be a 'surprise' that will depend on a handful of Cdn LRP crews to getting into work before a Monday morning... :.  Whether you believe it, or not, the GoC and RCAF are getting their pound of flesh out of the crews on Sqn.  They earn their non-duty weekends, full stop.  It ain't being passive aggressive; it's protecting the time off you do have because you don't get bags and bags of it.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Jan - Mar:  deployed, CJOC Op.
> Apr: post-deployment leave
> May:  reintegration training, ex prep, out of province for Ex MG/MF 2nd half of the month.
> June:  away on Ex MG/MF 1st half of the month.   home less than a week, deployed OUTCAN, CJOC Op.
> ...



I get it, you're the busiest guy in the CAF. I'd show you my schedule for the last 3 years but having a cyber-penis measuring contest isn't constructive. None of it changes the fact that your boss can lawfully order you to come in on your weekend off. Hiding from them deliberately is a pretty greasy way to manage your work/rest cycle. 

Whether its right or not to call someone in who has been away for most of the year is a completely different discussion.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (29 May 2018)

End of the day people should be reasonably contactable. Doesn't mean instantly, doesn't mean 5 minute voicemail turn around. 

I'd argue an email address should be sufficient. I'll check it at some point in the day and if it can't wait till tomorrow, then I will respond. I would hazard a guess that 90% of the calls that intrude into the personal time of our troops aren't as important or critical as they seem at the time. 

There's very few operations that are significant enough they can't wait for the troops to get in the next day that won't be significant enough for them know about it either before the weekend starts or from the news. I've seen very few large scale deployments kick off with less than 48 hours prior notice. The deployments within that time frame I have seen typically involve groups of people already designated high readiness and who are waiting for that call. 

The general culture demographic we are recruiting value personal time, they value it more than pay increases. If we abuse the authority we have to intrude into their personal time for frivolous reasons, then we are engineering our own recruiting/rention issues.


----------



## CountDC (29 May 2018)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> There's a big difference between the chain of command posting personal contact info as a "de facto" duty line, and members providing the CoC with reasonably efficient methods of contacting them in an emergency.
> 
> There are times when any CAF member might be needed on short notice, and that requirement is built into the compensation structure. It might be a whole unit activated in response to a DOMOP, or perhaps an individual is required to issue out an essential piece of kit to get a soldier out the door on an important last minute task or course.  Maybe a unit appears on your base unexpectedly (due to some admin SNAFU) expecting to draw ammunition and rations and special arrangements need to be made.  Maybe the MSE Op scheduled for that 7pm pickup gets food poisoning, and a replacement needs to be found.  The possibilities are endless.



 For the issue of an essential piece of kit, unit showing to draw ammo, rats, etc that is what duty pers are for and they should have a DND issued phone so no need of a personal phone.  it comes back again to there is no regulation that requires a member to have a phone or if they do have one to be monitoring it 24/7 just in case.  




			
				RCPalmer said:
			
		

> When we activated the our Territorial Defense Battalion for the 2013 Alberta floods, telephone service was down in my neighborhood, but internet was working.  So, I was able to get the word out via e-mail and Facebook instant messages.  Additionally, our RV was not our normal place of duty (the Armory) as access to the downtown core was restricted at that point, so there was a requirement to communicate the new location.  The primary reason this all worked was because most members made reasonable efforts to make themselves "reachable" to their CoC using a variety of channels.  If all comms methods had been down, we might have reverted to visiting each member's house, but why would we when there was a viable alternative?
> 
> I am not sure how this works in the other services, but in the Army virtually every unit is implicated in the DOMOPS framework at some level, which means that there is a requirement for units to conduct several fanouts per year.  Why would you force your supervisor to make special arrangements to reach you (ie visiting your house) when a short telephone call, e-mail, or text message would have sufficed?  Theoretically, we are required to achieve 100% accountability on these fanouts. However, in the reserve world we tend to cut them off around the 90-95% mark because we recognize that a portion of our soldiers will be truly unreachable, and I consider that perfectly acceptable for part-timers who for the most part, aren't actually on duty at the time of the fanout. I fully acknowledge that there will be circumstances when RegF members will be unreachable as well, such as leave in a remote location.  Even in that circumstance however, members are required to provide some form of contact information on their leave pass in the event their leave is cancelled.



and when you did that we also did a contact of all of our members to see if they were available if we were requested to assist you.  We also used all means possible to reach everyone we could.  That is not the point here though.  the point is that we are not required to have a cell phone and provide the number to anyone if we don't want to.  Supervisor visiting is a call they will have to make. if the person is that important the unit can not possibly function without them then they should issue the mbr a DND phone. 

Unless your fan out is during normal work hours then the RegF mbrs are not on duty at the time either. 

Contact is provided on the leave pass in case needed such as the CO cancelling leave but again the member is not required to be sitting on the phone waiting for the call. The contact may very well be one that the mbr will check in with on occasions when able as they happen to be going backcountry camping where cell phone comms is not possible.   



			
				RCPalmer said:
			
		

> The idea of whether the CoC should contact you outside of working hours is a totally different question, but ultimately that is up to the CoC, not the individual.  There are lots of strategies to reduce the requirement to bother members outside of regular duty hours such as sound forward planning by unit leadership, and the establishment of rotating duty structures (duty officer, duty NCO, duty clerk, duty tech, etc.) with DND mobile phones to support the most common off-hours requirements, and a well-led unit will take full advantage of these.  However, at the end of the day, any CAF member could be called to duty at any time.


Certainly the chain of command can try to contact outside working hours by the means of communication provided.  They can not order someone to get a cell phone so they can contact them whenever they want nor are members expected to be sitting waiting at whatever means of comms they have provided.   Call, leave a message and I will get back to you when I can.  As I am on a 72 hour recall it may be a couple days before I respond if it isn't a real emergency.


----------



## RCPalmer (29 May 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> For the issue of an essential piece of kit, unit showing to draw ammo, rats, etc that is what duty pers are for and they should have a DND issued phone so no need of a personal phone.  it comes back again to there is no regulation that requires a member to have a phone or if they do have one to be monitoring it 24/7 just in case.
> 
> 
> and when you did that we also did a contact of all of our members to see if they were available if we were requested to assist you.  We also used all means possible to reach everyone we could.  That is not the point here though.  the point is that we are not required to have a cell phone and provide the number to anyone if we don't want to.  Supervisor visiting is a call they will have to make. if the person is that important the unit can not possibly function without them then they should issue the mbr a DND phone.
> ...



A few things:

-I never said that it was lawful or a good idea to order a CAF member (RegF or PRes) to purchase a mobile phone, but it is a slippery slope.  Would it be acceptable for a CAF member to have no off-duty contact info at all (e.g. no mobile or home phone, and no fixed address because the member plans to couch surf and keep their kit in their locker in the unit lines)?  At some point, the CoC would impose some restrictions.  In the case above, the member might be ordered to live in the shacks.  

-I had mentioned the utility of duty staff in mitigating many unplanned requirements to order CAF members back to work, but pointed out scenarios where those would not be sufficient. 

-You are correct that no member of the CAF is on duty 24/7, but RegF members are subject to the CSD 24/7 (QR&O 102.01) and consequently subject to lawful orders 24/7.  Such an order could include a geographic restriction on travel without a leave pass (as currently done by some Base Commanders), or conceivably some sort of protocol requiring members be contactable within a certain amount of time.  

-In a period of high readiness, or a situation where an unplanned task might be anticipated, a commander might impose a control measure on members to decrease the turnaround time on a recall, such as "carry your cell phone on you, or check in with the Duty Center every 2 hours", or "I might need you to drive a truck from A to B tonight, stay reachable".    

-Are you saying that as a member of the RegF you have no obligation to participate in a fanout outside of working hours?  Good luck with that...

-All of this boils down to the fact that it is up to the CoC set the basic duty conditions to include working hours and any return to duty provisions, not the member.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 May 2018)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> -I never said that it was lawful or a good idea to order a CAF member (RegF or PRes) to purchase a mobile phone, but it is a slippery slope.  Would it be acceptable for a CAF member to have no off-duty contact info at all (e.g. no mobile or home phone, and no fixed address because the member plans to couch surf and keep their kit in their locker in the unit lines).  At some point, the CoC would impose some restrictions.  In the case above, the member might be ordered to live in the shacks.
> . . .



Grid Reference?

Okay, a little bit of a joke there, but only a little bit.  Way back in the dark ages, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and cell phones came in suitcases or were only seen as a space-age gadget hard mounted in automobiles in movies, the question was also asked.  Personally I knew of only one individual who gave his residence address as a grid reference (actually, it was a rural route number) because he lived (originally in a tent) on a plot of land on which he intended to build a house by himself (it took a few years).  When asked for a phone number, he reluctantly gave the number of a neighbour (who lived a mile or so away from his place) who, in the event of an emergency could pass a message to him.  Another story of unusual accommodations was told to me by a friend who had previously been an infantry officer.  It was brought to his attention (and the CO's) that one of the soldiers in his platoon had given the address of a local KFC when he moved out of shacks.  It hadn't been noticed but when the manager of the chicken restaurant complained that the soldier (guess which regiment  :nod had set up a lean-to hooch on the back of the building and was living there, military authorities had to step in.  Naturally the intellectual capability of the soldier was questioned.

And while not a Canadian reference, a classmate and friend when I was down in Texas on course lived in a fifth wheel trailer.  During the six months of the course he moved it three times, not counting the several weeks that he squatted in the parking lot at the BOQ.  While I was down there on TD, the Americans on course had been PCSed (posted there) so his trailer was his permanent residence.


----------



## BDTyre (29 May 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Grid Reference?
> 
> Okay, a little bit of a joke there, but only a little bit.  Way back in the dark ages, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and cell phones came in suitcases or were only seen as a space-age gadget hard mounted in automobiles in movies, the question was also asked.  Personally I knew of only one individual who gave his residence address as a grid reference (actually, it was a rural route number) because he lived (originally in a tent) on a plot of land on which he intended to build a house by himself (it took a few years).  When asked for a phone number, he reluctantly gave the number of a neighbour (who lived a mile or so away from his place) who, in the event of an emergency could pass a message to him.  Another story of unusual accommodations was told to me by a friend who had previously been an infantry officer.  It was brought to his attention (and the CO's) that one of the soldiers in his platoon had given the address of a local KFC when he moved out of shacks.  It hadn't been noticed but when the manager of the chicken restaurant complained that the soldier (guess which regiment  :nod had set up a lean-to hooch on the back of the building and was living there, military authorities had to step in.  Naturally the intellectual capability of the soldier was questioned.
> 
> And while not a Canadian reference, a classmate and friend when I was down in Texas on course lived in a fifth wheel trailer.  During the six months of the course he moved it three times, not counting the several weeks that he squatted in the parking lot at the BOQ.  While I was down there on TD, the Americans on course had been PCSed (posted there) so his trailer was his permanent residence.



We had a guy who at one point lived in what I can only describe as an SRO above the Cambie pub in Gastown bordering on the downtown eastside of Vancouver. Later, after deployment, he "released" (or attempted to), went home to the US, then came back to the regiment. He asked me if I could take his kit and follow him home (he was on his bicycle) and that it was only a few blocks. Sure enough, we go around the corner and up a block. I pull into the alley thinking he lives above one of the commercial units. Nope...it was the van parked on the street. He at least had a cell phone the whole time, but definitely no fixed address. He pretty much disappeared after that.


----------



## Haggis (30 May 2018)

A long time ago, when I first joined "The Militia", our RSS WO, a very redneck VanDoo, was posted on IR. He lived in a camper behind the Armoury.  On the unit nominal roll, his "home number" was the unit phone number and his home address was the unit address with the suffix "Apartment in Rear".


----------



## CountDC (30 May 2018)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> A few things:
> 
> -I never said that it was lawful or a good idea to order a CAF member (RegF or PRes) to purchase a mobile phone, but it is a slippery slope.  Would it be acceptable for a CAF member to have no off-duty contact info at all (e.g. no mobile or home phone, and no fixed address because the member plans to couch surf and keep their kit in their locker in the unit lines)?  At some point, the CoC would impose some restrictions.  In the case above, the member might be ordered to live in the shacks.



The solution used in the one case I am aware of that the member did not provide a phone number was simple.  The mbr was required to make contact with the unit every X hours when put on shorter recall notice.  During the regular time it was a given he would be seen at the regular reporting time of 0800hr.  Did have a case of an officer ordered to report to base accms to see about some quarters rather than sleeping in the gym. 



			
				RCPalmer said:
			
		

> -You are correct that no member of the CAF is on duty 24/7, but RegF members are subject to the CSD 24/7 (QR&O 102.01) and consequently subject to lawful orders 24/7.  Such an order could include a geographic restriction on travel without a leave pass (as currently done by some Base Commanders), or conceivably some sort of protocol requiring members be contactable within a certain amount of time.
> 
> -In a period of high readiness, or a situation where an unplanned task might be anticipated, a commander might impose a control measure on members to decrease the turnaround time on a recall, such as "carry your cell phone on you, or *check in with the Duty Center every 2 hours*", or "I might need you to drive a truck from A to B tonight, stay reachable".



check in is the one valid.  Carry my cell phone, nope, my cell phone for personal usage and if I don't want to carry it I won't.  Maybe I promised to let my kid play with it that day.  Stay reachable - yep, by calling in every 2 hours.  Having a rank or position does not bestow upon you the authority to order someone to use their personal items for military usage. I usually ask the member if they will be reachable on their cell phone rather than trying to issue an order I shouldn't be.  Most times they will say yes but on occasion have had to work out the member calling me at a set time. Not a matter of them making things difficult for me, it is me making things easy for them (we used to call it taking care of the troops).   Mind you the original question of this chain had nothing to do with any of that so we seem to be wading into thickness that has no bearing.



			
				RCPalmer said:
			
		

> -Are you saying that as a member of the RegF you have no obligation to participate in a fanout outside of working hours?  Good luck with that...



No, I am saying I am obligated to participate within the current directions. I am not at a high ready unit.  I am on 72 hours notice.  I do not have to carry my phone or answer it.  My chain of command can call it anytime they want, leave a message and if it is important I will get back to them when I get the message.  Depending on what I am doing it may take some time as I am not under any restrictions.  Maybe I went camping and do not have cell contact until Sunday, maybe I just decide to turn off my phone until Sunday, maybe my son dropped my cell phone into the a glass of water.

 I had plenty of luck with it the one time I wasn't at work for the fan out as there was absolutely nothing saying we were required to be available other than the regular 72 hours notice to move and I was at work within that period. Also had luck when my supervisor called my work cell to pass on a change in exercise instructions after hours and opted to not leave a message thinking I should have been jumping to answer it.  He learned the difference between a work phone and duty phone and I am sure is a better officer for it.



			
				RCPalmer said:
			
		

> -All of this boils down to the fact that it is up to the CoC set the basic duty conditions to include working hours and any return to duty provisions, not the member.


Mostly agree except adding within regulations and the restrictions of the members life style.  If they do not have a phone then figure it out just like we did in the past. If that means the member has to find a way to call the unit every 24 hours then by all means set that instead of trying to get them to obtain a cell phone.  just don't set up a system that comes through as punishment as that can come back to bite when they redress it.

We are all reachable in one way or the other, it boils down to the chain of command knowing how their members are reachable and ensuring they have a method in place that enables them to work within it.  Sometimes it may be a phone call to mommy but if that is the case then work with it.  (yes I have called peoples mother in order to reach them.  Usually doesn't take long for them to call back and is probably the quickest way to reach the difficult cases.)

I think we are mainly in agreement that the chain of command has ultimate control on recalling and contacting members.  The chain is the ones that will set up the final system.  The only real point is that the chain can not rely on cell phones and social media as not everyone is reachable that way. They must include planning for the other members which includes the possibility that members are not always instantly available after hours as we do have life's to live and are not tied to our phones.  Expecting people to always be available on their cell is equivalent to expecting them to be home all the time if they have a land line. Neither is reasonable.  They also have to be mindful about issuing work phones and designating them as duty phones (see LPM on that one).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't get it but I'll continue to be sarcastic, you're the busiest guy in the CAF LRP Crews were extremely busy and free time was in short supply during Oct 2014 - Dec 2017 because of a sustained op. I'd show you my schedule for the last 3 years but having a cyber-penis measuring contest isn't constructive. None of it changes the fact that your boss can lawfully order you to come in on your weekend off. Hiding from them deliberately is a pretty greasy way to manage your work/rest cycle.



Hopefully you'll see my point now.  I used myself as an example, but everyone on my crew, and every crew was like that, just at different points in time/during the year.  I don't blame anyone of them, or even consider thoughts like "man, those guys should go Class A, what a bunch of disloyal shitburgers" for turning their ringer off if they did on Fri night because I know how exhausted people were getting over the months.

Yup, you're right.  One of my bosses could call, or attempt to call me, on a non-duty weekend to tell me I have to go to the Sqn.  I'm also right, and that if I (a) was half way across Canada and couldn't make it or (B) didn't have my phone turned on, there isn't much that could be done unless I didn't show up at the next time I was expected back at the Sqn when I left Friday, which would be 0800 Monday.  





> Whether its right or not to call someone in who has been away for most of the year is a completely different discussion.



Sometimes, you're the only horse left in the stable...


----------



## CampCricket (23 Jun 2018)

The MCpl is using text messages for routine/non urgent matters that I would not even warrant an email or a phone call for. It’s a control thing. She needs instant feed back on where her subordinates are what tasks they are currently working on. If she doesn’t get a reply in 5 minutes, she hunts her subordinates down. Also, if they respond to any other texts not from her, she writes them up for personal use of cell phones during working hours. Some how she wants her staff to carry their personal phones like a leash but know when she is communicating and not respond to their phones if she is not at the other end. To me, not only is this bad management but is against DND policy. If the member needed to respond immediately, then they would be issued a phone. Also, this is a security issue as DND business is being communicated on non secure formats... a big no-no 10 years ago... so I was wanting to know if the technology has changed so much that security is no longer an issue. Any real policy on this matter.


----------



## CountDC (6 Jul 2018)

Just saw your post.  

may be just me but I would ignore my cell phone for a day, maybe even leave it home and let her try to push charges.  

For security - it would depend on the information that is relayed.  If she is transmitting secure information then certainly.  For example I have had requests for members information including service numbers, phone numbers, addresses to be sent to outside DND email addresses and refused to do so as it is Protected A information that is not supposed to be sent outside.


----------

