# Conflict of Interest



## Bradboy (23 Jan 2009)

I'm currently looking into remustering into the MP trade. I am currently posted to CFB Petawawa and have been there for almost 3 years. I have heard rumours that if I remuster as an MP I won't be posted back to Petawawa due to "conflict of interest". Is there anyone that could clear this up for me. It seems like nonsense but there have been stranger things happen. Any info would be much appreciated.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2009)

Bradboy said:
			
		

> I'm currently looking into remustering into the MP trade. I am currently posted to CFB Petawawa and have been there for almost 3 years. I have heard rumours that if I remuster as an MP I won't be posted back to Petawawa due to "conflict of interest". Is there anyone that could clear this up for me. It seems like nonsense but there have been stranger things happen. Any info would be much appreciated.



Sounds like you have been listening to a Barrackroom Lawyer, and not a person in the know, like the BPSO or even a good knowledgeable clerk.  There would probably be no "conflict of interest" as you'd be gone for a minimum of a year on crse, and many changes happen in a CMBG in that amount of time.  If you have been around for any amount of time, then no matter where you get posted you will know someone, so anyone having concerns about that should rethink their logic...........But I am not the reigning authority.


----------



## RHC_2_MP (23 Jan 2009)

Sorry Bradboy, What you've been hearing is exactly right.  If your re-mustering, you won't be placed back at your originating unit's home base.  Our job tends have us bump heads with members on many occasions and to avoid *most * possible transgressions, unfortunately...you can't go home.  Believe me, I asked and was shot down several times.


----------



## Bradboy (23 Jan 2009)

I understand the military's reasoning for this. But how is it any different from whatever base they post me too. Once I settle into my new posting I would develop a new freind base. Conflicts of Interest are still going to occur regardless of what base they post me too. Plus my common-law wife is posted to Petawawa. Will that be taken into consideration?


----------



## FastEddy (24 Jan 2009)

Bradboy said:
			
		

> I understand the military's reasoning for this. But how is it any different from whatever base they post me too. Once I settle into my new posting I would develop a new freind base. Conflicts of Interest are still going to occur regardless of what base they post me too. Plus my common-law wife is posted to Petawawa. Will that be taken into consideration?




Just a passing thought, I think that you will find that your new Friend base will probably only consist of your Detachment Personnel and Families and local LEO's.

It kinda works out that way, and by the way, you're not allowed to have conflicts of interest. If this is contrary to your nature and personality, then maybe the Branch is not your best choice.

Cheers.


----------



## Bradboy (24 Jan 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Just a passing thought, I think that you will find that your new Friend base will probably only consist of your Detachment Personnel and Families and local LEO's.
> 
> It kinda works out that way, and by the way, you're not allowed to have conflicts of interest. If this is contrary to your nature and personality, then maybe the Branch is not your best choice.
> 
> Cheers.



  I appreciate the thought but I don't really buy that. How is it any different than a civy cop being hired in the same region as his/ her family and friends? And I know it happens my old man is a prime example. Conflicts of Interest are going to happen regardless of my posting. I thought thats where integrity comes into play? Doing what is right regardless of who I pull over...

  I realize what I need to do is talk to my BPSO. I'm currently deployed overseas and not very often get into KAF. I appreciate all your advice but I'm looking for someone on here to tell me for sure. If I can't get posted to Petawawa than remustering to MP is out of the question. My wife is posted to Petawawa and this would cause serious problems if we were posted to different bases. I need to know if I'm wasting my time or if exceptions can be made to this rule.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Jan 2009)

Bradboy said:
			
		

> I appreciate the thought but I don't really buy that. How is it any different than a civy cop being hired in the same region as his/ her family and friends? And I know it happens my old man is a prime example. Conflicts of Interest are going to happen regardless of my posting. I thought thats where integrity comes into play? Doing what is right regardless of who I pull over...
> 
> I realize what I need to do is talk to my BPSO. I'm currently deployed overseas and not very often get into KAF. I appreciate all your advice but I'm looking for someone on here to tell me for sure. If I can't get posted to Petawawa than remustering to MP is out of the question. My wife is posted to Petawawa and this would cause serious problems if we were posted to different bases. I need to know if I'm wasting my time or if exceptions can be made to this rule.




I'd leave Family out of the equation. As I doubt that you would regularly bump into them on DND property. As for Civilian Forces, usually you are well separated by Population volume and Metropolis Spread in your assigned patrol areas.

Now regarding the Big "M" in MP, you seem to have overlooked the fact that both of you are Soldiers, unless things have changed, that means you go where and when your told to. I guess one of the few perks of the Infantry is that you're always close to the Regiment, near or far. Of course the Military in general, on occasion does try to be accommodating.

If long term posting locations and separation is a deal breaker, now or later, then off hand, again I suggest the Branch is not your best choice. Although if one party decided to leave the Military, then that Spouse could follow the other any where.

You speak of exceptions to the rule, but if its a case of having your cake and eating it to, then complaining about the flavour of the icing.

Cheers.


----------



## Bradboy (24 Jan 2009)

I understand what you're saying. My plan has always been to join a civy police force once my contract is up. I was looking at the option of remustering into the MP trade so that i could avoid taking a civilian college police foundations course. But if it's going to seperate me from my wife than thats not what I want. I'll schedule an appointment with the BPSO just to ensure what I'm being told is fact. I appreciate your input and thanks for your help.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Jan 2009)

Bradboy said:
			
		

> I understand what you're saying. My plan has always been to join a civy police force once my contract is up. I was looking at the option of remustering into the MP trade so that i could avoid taking a civilian college police foundations course. But if it's going to seperate me from my wife than thats not what I want. I'll schedule an appointment with the BPSO just to ensure what I'm being told is fact. I appreciate your input and thanks for your help.




Ahhh! the game plan is a bit different now. What you really want to get written in Blood, is guarantee's (you know what I mean)  from what ever Agencies you intend to apply to, that your Military Police sojourn will count and be accepted in lieu of a College Police Foundation Accreditation.

Then you still have the Area Assignment Problem. And if your Wife remains in the Military and gets posted to B.C. and your in the O.P.P. at Petawawa, what then.

Believe me , it not only the Military that Personnel Retention is a big concern, its very prevailant in the LEO Field.

Good luck in your endeavors and keep us posted.

Cheers.


----------



## garb811 (24 Jan 2009)

You CAN go back to the base you were at when you remustered, I am personally aware of one case where it has happened and not for any compelling reason such as family issues but simply because the person asked to be posted back and a position needed to be filled.    

In your specific instance, I think you're getting a bit wrapped around the axle.  The absolute worst thing you could do is get posted back to Pet because by that point, if your wife was in and posted at the same time, you'll both have been there approaching 4 years and HER CM is going to start itching to post her.  IF you go remuster and IF you get another base, your wife's CM is getting a free move, as is the MP CM and everyone is happy.  

Just my point of view of course...

RHC_2_MP:  Guess you musta POd your DS.


----------



## Bradboy (25 Jan 2009)

garb811 said:
			
		

> In your specific instance, I think you're getting a bit wrapped around the axle.  The absolute worst thing you could do is get posted back to Pet because by that point, if your wife was in and posted at the same time, you'll both have been there approaching 4 years and HER CM is going to start itching to post her.  IF you go remuster and IF you get another base, your wife's CM is getting a free move, as is the MP CM and everyone is happy.
> 
> Just my point of view of course...
> 
> RHC_2_MP:  Guess you musta POd your DS.



  I don't think I have to worry about that. My wife is currently in Gagetown on her 3's and hasn't even been posted yet. We're sure she's going to get Petawawa because I'm posted there and 2 CER is there (she's training to be a combat engineer). So we're looking at a few years before either of us gets posted. Which brings me to my next question. I'm currently on my second 3 year contract (continuing engagement). Will I be able to sign another 3 year contract if I remuster or will they make me sign the dreaded 19 year contract?


----------



## geo (25 Jan 2009)

what's so dreadful about a 19 yr contract ?


----------



## Jungle (25 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> what's so dreadful about a 19 yr contract ?


For certain people, the feeling of "commitment"...


----------



## HeadLamp (25 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> what's so dreadful about a 19 yr contract ?





 [quote author=Bradboy]My plan has always been to join a civy police force once my contract is up. I was looking at the option of remustering into the MP trade so that i could avoid taking a civilian college police foundations course.[/quote]

 He doesn't want to hang around that long as he just wants to get the training and get out, which I would assume is why he called it "dreadful".


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2009)

HeadLamp said:
			
		

> He doesn't want to hang around that long as he just wants to get the training and get out, which I would assume is why he called it "dreadful".



I would think that his "Conflict of Interest" isn't complete without his "conflict of interest" in his spouse's career goals.  He has expressed his questions on his own career and ramifications of his move to the MP Trade.  He has, however, dismissed his career plans to get Policing experience in the CF and then become a Civilian LEO in respect to his spouse's career plans for a CF career.  Not a good mix.  If he expects to be posted to the same location as his spouse, while both in the military, and then as a civilian, then he has some serious thinking to do.  Does he stand a good chance of being posted to the same location as his spouse, or his spouse to his location, while in the military?  Will the same happen when he takes a Release?  Does he expect his spouse to then give up her career aspirations, and Release to follow him in his civilian aspirations?  Does he think his civilian employers will post him to be with his military wife?   Has either of them considered their CF Pension possibilities or lack of?



As for the "dreadful 19 year contract" comment; I found that to be insulting and a thoughtless stupid comment for the OP to have made.  It defined him as being someone who really doesn't have commitment to the CF.  At the same time, it looks like he may have a lot of thinking to do as to his career aspirations, his spouse's career aspirations, and whether or not they have much in common.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As for the "dreadful 19 year contract" comment; I found that to be insulting and a thoughtless stupid comment for the OP to have made.  It defined him as being someone who really doesn't have commitment to the CF.



Veering off topic but I don't find it either of those things...........George, not everyone does one thing for their entire life.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Veering off topic but I don't find it either of those things...........George, not everyone does one thing for their entire life.




True.

It is a telling statement, that he didn't really understand what it was.  Not everyone wants the CF as a career for their entire life is correct, but the "Dreaded 19 Year Contract" is an ill-informed statement for him to have made.   A member can sign that contract and put in for a request to get out of the CF the very next day, or 19 years later.  It is not written in stone that one is commited to serve and not get out for 19 years.  It is only a contract that will not have to be renewed every three or four years.  

This thread, as it progresses, shows that the OP has many more questions to answer in respect to his and his spouse's career aspirations than what he originally posted.  He has a great many things that only he and his spouse must come to agreement on; not what we on army.ca can answer for him.


----------



## Jungle (25 Jan 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Veering off topic but I don't find it either of those things...........George, not everyone does one thing for their entire life.


Not insulting, but certainly thoughtless. The 19-year contract is not like joining the Foreign Legion... people who wish to leave during that contract simply submit a request for a release and are almost invariably civilians well before the prescribed 6-month period is over.

Personally, I find the "I will serve under my terms and conditions, and with my personal interests well ahead of anything else" attitude disappointing, but he is not the only person who thinks like that.


----------



## FastEddy (25 Jan 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Veering off topic but I don't find it either of those things...........George, not everyone does one thing for their entire life.




Yes I suppose that's one way of looking at it. But there are a number of certain Career Paths that are followed extensively or till retirement.

George's comments  are right on the mark. But these people can't be blamed since the Government has turned the Military into Canada's Number One Employment Agency. Where else today can you come out of College with a Degree in Basket Weaving and get a 50K job, plus job security.

You can't criticize these people for using the Military as stepping stones, but you don't have to love them and help them on their way or sing their praise.

Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jan 2009)

Didn't say I "loved" them, nor can I sing, but just that it's wrong to call someone thoughtless and stupid for taking advantage of an OFFERED opportunity.

Someone is trying to better what they consider their stock in life and some folks jump them,....sad really.
I'm out of this topic.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2009)

Once again, this being a form of communication that does not accurately reflect the exact nuances of our typed expressions we seem to have derailed over a minor topic, which we are all probably in agreement on, but due to the nature of the internet, seem to have opposing views, even if they are small technicalities branching from the main theme we are in agreement on.......Does that make sense?

Do we have anything more to add on "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"?


----------



## shaun_bougie (28 Jan 2009)

Bradboy,

I've left the MPs to go to the OPP.  I'll have to caution you on this.  If you think you're going to go to the Military Police, get 6 months of course, do a few years with the MPs and come directly to the OPP, you have something else coming to you.

There are only a handful of agencies that accept direct lateral transfers between the Military Police and their agency.  RCMP, Calgary and Halifax are the only ones that come right to mind.  There is NOT ONE Police Service in Ontario that will take the Military Police as lateral transfers.  The reason being is the same as the reasoning in Quebec.  Ontario and Quebec have Provincially run Police Colleges.  They also charge fees to attend these colleges (I think Ontario just went up to $10K).  They will limit any police agency's members from attending a police service in Ontario as a lateral transfer because they want their share of the money.  It is the way it is.  I had to go to Ontario Police College as did about 9 other ex-MPs that were in my intake.  It will continue to be this way for a long time to come.  Hell the OPP's just deciding to allow Military Police service as "Continuous Full Time Police Service" for vacation and Provincial Retention Incentive credit this year.  I had to start out at the bottom as a Recruit-Constable and I'm slowly moving up.  Needless to say is that I'm very thankful that the 39 months I put in with the MPs will be credited toward getting to 8 years for an extra week's vacation and PRI.  None of the other services in Ontario offer this to ex-MPs.

As for being posted to Petawawa.  It's rare but if your spouse is there and just getting there, then chances are you'll be allowed to go back.  The CF isn't in the business of ruining marriages...... anymore


----------



## Bradboy (1 Feb 2009)

Just to sort Mr. Wallace out. My wife and I have spoken many times about this. She does not plan on staying in the military past her 5 year contract. I have 2 years left on my current contract and I am hoping I will only have to sign another 3 years if I remuster. That will put both of our contracts up around the same time, give or take a month. Not everyone that joins the army plans on doing it for a career. So for me, signing the "dreaded 19 year contract" is not something I want to do. And breaking contract is something I'd like to avoid. Apologies to those of you "hardcore" lifer types. 

   





			
				Shaun said:
			
		

> Bradboy,
> 
> I've left the MPs to go to the OPP.  I'll have to caution you on this.  If you think you're going to go to the Military Police, get 6 months of course, do a few years with the MPs and come directly to the OPP, you have something else coming to you.
> 
> There are only a handful of agencies that accept direct lateral transfers between the Military Police and their agency.  RCMP, Calgary and Halifax are the only ones that come right to mind.  There is NOT ONE Police Service in Ontario that will take the Military Police as lateral transfers.  The reason being is the same as the reasoning in Quebec.  Ontario and Quebec have Provincially run Police Colleges.  They also charge fees to attend these colleges (I think Ontario just went up to $10K).  They will limit any police agency's members from attending a police service in Ontario as a lateral transfer because they want their share of the money.  It is the way it is.  I had to go to Ontario Police College as did about 9 other ex-MPs that were in my intake.  It will continue to be this way for a long time to come.  Hell the OPP's just deciding to allow Military Police service as "Continuous Full Time Police Service" for vacation and Provincial Retention Incentive credit this year.  I had to start out at the bottom as a Recruit-Constable and I'm slowly moving up.  Needless to say is that I'm very thankful that the 39 months I put in with the MPs will be credited toward getting to 8 years for an extra week's vacation and PRI.  None of the other services in Ontario offer this to ex-MPs.



 Thanks for this info. I expected that I would have to go to OPC. I never doubted that. I'm just looking into becoming an MP for the schooling and added experience to my background. If my wife is going to be posted to Petawawa for 5 years I want to use that time to build my resume and I think remustering to MP is the best way to do it. My other option was once my current contract is up to take a civilian college police foundations course. I figure going the MP way would be the better option. But if I'm unable to get posted back to Petawawa with my wife than it's out of the question. I'll be talking to my BPSO soon I hope so I'll post on here what the outcome is. Hopefully it will be good news.


----------



## Nauticus (8 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As for the "dreadful 19 year contract" comment; I found that to be insulting and a thoughtless stupid comment for the OP to have made.  It defined him as being someone who really doesn't have commitment to the CF.  At the same time, it looks like he may have a lot of thinking to do as to his career aspirations, his spouse's career aspirations, and whether or not they have much in common.


I personally don't think his comments were offensive or stupid. There's a huge sum of people who join the Forces because they want to serve their country, not necessarily because they have long-term career aspirations in the military. This doesn't make them any less of a soldier, either - they come in and do the same as anybody else who joined, just for a lesser amount of time. I don't believe it's necessarily detrimental if somebody doesn't want to be a "career soldier".

I don't really see what the issue with him wanting to work where his wife does. He's stated that his career goals are with a civilian law enforcement agency, so there's really nothing stopping him from applying to a municipal police force at, or near, where ever his wife happens to be posted to. But you are right, he has a lot of thinking to do. I agree that, perhaps, military police may not be his best option.


----------



## FastEddy (8 Feb 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I personally don't think his comments were offensive or stupid. There's a huge sum of people who join the Forces because they want to serve their country, not necessarily because they have long-term career aspirations in the military. This doesn't make them any less of a soldier, either - they come in and do the same as anybody else who joined, just for a lesser amount of time. I don't believe it's necessarily detrimental if somebody doesn't want to be a "career soldier".
> 
> I don't really see what the issue with him wanting to work where his wife does. He's stated that his career goals are with a civilian law enforcement agency, so there's really nothing stopping him from applying to a municipal police force at, or near, where ever his wife happens to be posted to. But you are right, he has a lot of thinking to do. I agree that, perhaps, military police may not be his best option.




First of all, I don't think that anybody thought him Stupid or offensive.

Secondly,   Theres nothing wrong with somebody discovering down the line that the Military is not for them, or not what they expected. But to join as a stepping stone and exploit the Military for what you can glean out of it. It certainly not joining for all the Right Reasons.

Thirdly, As far as Serving your Country, since when is there a time cap on this, because or what you can get out of it in the shortest amount of your time or commitment. 

Fourth, you are filling a vacancy that some Military Career Minded person (especially the MP Branch) will be denied.

Fifth, maybe the only thing stupid was admitting his intent and asking us to help or how to screw the Army. Or your Championing his Cause.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I personally don't think his comments were offensive or stupid.



Sorry, but it only indicated to me that he really has no clue as to what his periods of engagement really are, nor the regulations governing them.  It was a totally uninformed statement.  I found it offensive and do think it was stupid of him to make.  If you condone stupidity, fine.

As he has fairly well cleared up what his position is as to his aspirations, this should bring to an end this topic.  He is making some career and family oriented choices to move on after the CF which is a wize thing to do.  I would like to advise him and his spouse to both attend SCAN seminars in their final four or five years of service so that they will be well informed as to what benefits and oportunities the CF will offer them on leaving the CF (when the time comes).


----------



## Nauticus (8 Feb 2009)

I appreciate your comments George Wallace. I enjoy reading your posts, because they bring a "been there, done that" aura that is always informative and wise. I also agree it should be an end to the topic, however...



			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> First of all, I don't think that anybody thought him Stupid or offensive.
> 
> Secondly,   Theres nothing wrong with somebody discovering down the line that the Military is not for them, or not what they expected. But to join as a stepping stone and exploit the Military for what you can glean out of it. It certainly not joining for all the Right Reasons.
> 
> ...


I do not appreciate your suggestion that my comments were stupid (as highlighted by the bold). I will not even directly comment on that, except that it is disrespectful and may showcase the type of poster that you are.

The point I would like to ask, and make, is this: What are the "right reasons" to join the military? And who are you to tell somebody else that their reasons for joining are not?

Why did I join? Because I wanted to serve my country, and I saw the armed forces as something I was able to thrive in. I personally know somebody who felt the need to serve his country, although he has no intention to stay longer than his initial contract. Three years is a lot of time, and in some's opinion, it may be an ample investment to serve one's country. Does this make him a "less-good" soldier than someone who intends to spend a lot of time, like myself or perhaps you? Of course not. Suggesting otherwise is merely creating a caste system where there should be equals. Pointing out differences where there shouldn't be.

This is obviously my opinion, but I have the right to disagree with you respectfully, even though you did not do the same thing to me. Ranks and medals are there to reflect "time in", and I don't believe we should be judging the quality of those who serve based merely on intended time in.

Thanks for your time!


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2009)

Is that directed at me, or FastEddy?


I'll give one opinion, and a generalization, that I hate spending all my time and effort, not to mention the governments monies to train someone who has joined, not for a career, but to 'Social Climb' and is basically here under false pretenses, who quites after getting all that training.  Someone who says "Oh yeah I will make the commitment." and then once they have the course, it is "See ya!"  I have a Cpl who just did that on completing the CP Crse.  He should deploy this month, but no, "I can get a better job here at home, and maybe join the Police."  To me that is a betrayal, not necessarily to me, but to to any others that may truly want the Crse, but will stand a poor chance of doing so, because this one guy bailed as soon as he completed it.  He may have slammed that door in their faces.  To me his ethics and morals are now in question.  What else will he desert in the future?  Will he leave me in a time of dire need?

Anyone remember when  we first got the Griffons?  How we sent all those mechanics down to Texas to get qualified, only to see them put in their Releases on return to Canada, so that they could go work in the civilian sector.  I'd call that betrayal.  If you were a Civilian employer, what would you have done if your guys jumped ship as soon as they got the qualification?

Someone who honestly has done his time, and is up front with why he wants to VOT is usually more accepted.  TI, however, isn't a couple of months or years.  It is at the very least the completion of the first two engagements (dependant on Trade).  


As the CF ages out, perhaps it is time to penalize those leaving early, instead of rewarding them.   If you don't have X years of Service, you pay out of pocket the costs of the Crses you have received.  If we don't do that, when the older, more experienced, members reach CRA, there will won't be any younger people with experience to carry on.  If you look at some Trades now, like RMS, you can already see that; inexperienced Snr NCOs promoted before they are knowledgeable and experienced enough to be promoted.  Pushing inexperienced people up to fill vacancies opened by members meeting CRA.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Feb 2009)

George, if this is such a big problem to the CF, why don't they implement mandatory service after completing a trade's course, like pilots and Navigators (or whatever they're called now) are subjected to?  

To have a healthy company, you cannot keep everyone for 20-25-30 years.  Attrition must happen.


----------



## riggermade (8 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is that directed at me, or FastEddy?
> 
> 
> I'll give one opinion, and a generalization, that I hate spending all my time and effort, not to mention the governments monies to train someone who has joined, not for a career, but to 'Social Climb' and is basically here under false pretenses, who quites after getting all that training.  Someone who says "Oh yeah I will make the commitment." and then once they have the course, it is "See ya!"  I have a Cpl who just did that on completing the CP Crse.  He should deploy this month, but no, "I can get a better job here at home, and maybe join the Police."  To me that is a betrayal, not necessarily to me, but to to any others that may truly want the Crse, but will stand a poor chance of doing so, because this one guy bailed as soon as he completed it.  He may have slammed that door in their faces.  To me his ethics and morals are now in question.  What else will he desert in the future?  Will he leave me in a time of dire need?
> ...



I try to try and keep my opinions to myself but i think George is way beyond his boundries here.  People use jobs as a way to advance themselves all the time and the military is no different. I did 24+ plus years and if a job had of come up paying better money I would have been out in a heartbeat.
On this site I believe you are in a position where you should be impartial, if you can't do that then step down


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> George, if this is such a big problem to the CF, why don't they implement mandatory service after completing a trade's course, like pilots and Navigators (or whatever they're called now) are subjected to?
> 
> To have a healthy company, you cannot keep everyone for 20-25-30 years.  Attrition must happen.



I'd say that mandatory service would be a good step to take for all ranks.  

Attrition must happen, but if it is happening to those in the first to fifth year timelines, then the experience and knowledge is being lost.  It forces some more dedicated, who hold that knowledge and experience, to stay longer, which creates quite a delta when it comes to experience, and quite a problem when a large percentage of a Trade reaches CRA.  The whole CF is at that point right now, with large numbers of members recruited in the '70s and '80s leaving.  This is why we have a shortage of Instructors across all Trades; all due to the folly of the Government in the early '90s when they created FRP and at the same time froze Recruiting.  Bringing only one of two Recruit Schools back on line has not provided the personnel at a rate to overcome the problems of attrition from older, experienced NCOs leaving.  A lot of corporate knowledge is being lost.  The CF is now looking at a bunch of "Rookies" being forced into a steep learning curve, and often having to reinvent the wheel in their attempts to keep the CF's head above water.  This can't even be compared to the War Years, because today the "Experienced" and "Knowledgeable" are not staying in the CF in large enough quantities to rebuild and retrain, passing on their knowledge and experience.



This, however, is getting a little off topic.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2009)

riggermade said:
			
		

> I try to try and keep my opinions to myself but i think George is way beyond his boundries here.
> On this site I believe you are in a position where you should be impartial, if you can't do that then step down



So?  I take it you would like to CENSOR me and not permit me the same rights that you so easily enjoy?



			
				riggermade said:
			
		

> People use jobs as a way to advance themselves all the time and the military is no different. I did 24+ plus years and if a job had of come up paying better money I would have been out in a heartbeat.



I have no problems with a guy doing his time and finding a better job elsewhere.  I do have a problem with a guy with a couple of years in, taking the Trades Trg, expecially the specialty courses, and leaving as soon as (s)he finishes the Crse.  I think SupersonicMax has hit on a solution: whereby people are required to serve a fixed period after getting specialty crses, just like the various officer occupations.  This would solve some of our current problems.


----------



## Nauticus (8 Feb 2009)

Very interesting discussion. I apologize for any controversy that my comments might have caused, and I also apologize for apparently hijacking the thread!

I think an easy solution to this problem would be to extend an initial contract to 5, or maybe 6 or 7, years. It seems long, but it would allow a person to serve his entire time following training, and it would also keep those who may abuse the system from applying. I suppose the flaw would probably cut back further on those who enlist, making our military smaller. I, personally, would be all for signing a 5, 6 or 7 year engagement contract.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I think an easy solution to this problem would be to extend an initial contract to 5, or maybe 6 or 7, years. It seems long, but it would allow a person to serve his entire time following training, and it would also keep those who may abuse the system from applying. I suppose the flaw would probably cut back further on those who enlist, making our military smaller. I, personally, would be all for signing a 5, 6 or 7 year engagement contract.



I'm not really advocating extending the initial contract across the board, but for some of the Trades that require more specialize Training, or any Trade that places personnel on a Specialty Course.  The compulsory service wouldn't be based on Trades, but on Courses.  If an Infanteer wanted to do a HUMINT or Interrogator Crse, then they would be required to serve X years after, to gain experience and pass on their experience and knowledge to future candidates; as opposed to gaining the course and leaving immediately for a civilian job as a contractor.  Or the RMS clerk who gets some specialized software courses, and pulls pin, now being required to serve X number of years to implent and train others on that system.  This would be Course based, not Trade based, so you may find an Infanteer serving two engagements and getting out after six years and no specialty courses, while his buddy with a specialty, will have to serve X number of extra years.

I don't think it will cut the flow of Recruits, but it will give those dedicated to a career in the CF better opportunities to get specialty courses, and gain the experience and knowledge to keep the CF viable.   It may slow the knowledge and experience draining out of the CF with the large numbers meeting CRA.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Feb 2009)

Holy crap George!

Maybe just force people to sign into jail if they want the "good" courses........then we can ensure they stay put.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2009)

Why train people, giving them skills in high demand, and not be able to use them to perpetuate a Trade?  It is retarded to train people for occupations, if they have no intention to put some dedication into that occupation.  Where would the next TF be, if everyone on the Work Up Trg decided to put in their Release before Deploying, taking on Private Contractor jobs in some other nation instead?  (A poor example, and greatly exaggerated, but that is where the CF is.)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> but that is where the CF is.



Yup, don't you hate when free will and personal choice interferes with a VOLUNTEER military?


----------



## chris_log (9 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is that directed at me, or FastEddy?
> 
> 
> I'll give one opinion, and a generalization, that I hate spending all my time and effort, not to mention the governments monies to train someone who has joined, not for a career, but to 'Social Climb' and is basically here under false pretenses, who quites after getting all that training.  Someone who says "Oh yeah I will make the commitment." and then once they have the course, it is "See ya!"  I have a Cpl who just did that on completing the CP Crse.  He should deploy this month, but no, "I can get a better job here at home, and maybe join the Police."  To me that is a betrayal, not necessarily to me, but to to any others that may truly want the Crse, but will stand a poor chance of doing so, because this one guy bailed as soon as he completed it.  He may have slammed that door in their faces.  To me his ethics and morals are now in question.  What else will he desert in the future?  Will he leave me in a time of dire need?
> ...



It's the nature of the beast. There are people who join the CF under honest pretences, people who join only to pull pole for a better paying civvie job once they are fully trained and people who join because it's just another job but with better benefits and far harder to get fired from. 

I know people (in ROTP) who are quite open about how they joined the CF for the degree and the networking and who will leave for airline jobs, UN jobs, government jobs...whatever once their time is up (there's a guy I know at an unnamed school who leans farther to the left then Jack Layton...and is an Inf officer....who wants to work for the UN....yeah, he's here for the degree and only the degree, he's also a twit but thats besides the point). Thats just how it works, we get techs who jump ship after they get their advanced courses and JTF2 folks who jump ship for better paying police and civvie contractor jobs. 

Heck, I've always been interested in law enforcement and I'm weighing the options of becoming a cop 6 years down the road when my contract is up. I might, I might not.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup, don't you hate when free will and personal choice interferes with a VOLUNTEER military?



Actually, I hate to see the CF as a form of EI, or a Free Ride for someone wanting a free education or Trades training.

Guess the Oath really is nothing but a piece of paper, without meaning.  This "Sense of Entitlement.  Me First." philosophy only has short term benefits.  The long term loose is starting to hit us now.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess the Oath really is nothing but a piece of paper, without meaning.



Give it up, your sounding real stupid,... what, everyone who didn't finish their life serving is now some kind of low-life?




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> or a Free Ride for someone wanting a free education or Trades training.



Yup, its unbelievable the shame I feel not wanting to be just the guy who loads the L-5.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, I hate to see the CF as a form of EI,



Hmm, for some reason a set of initials come to mind but I just can't seem to remember them right now.....


----------



## HeadLamp (10 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Give it up, your sounding real stupid,... what, everyone who didn't finish their life serving is now some kind of low-life?



 I don't think he sounds stupid at all, and I tend to agree with the majority of his posts in this thread so far. As I often see on online forums it appears that you have had a nerve touched, which usually leads to missing what other people are trying to get across. I don't think you came even close to comprehending what he is posting.

 I also don't know how you came up with the "what, everyone who didn't finish their life serving is now some kind of low-life?", especially after he wrote this:

 [quote author=George Wallace]*I have no problems with a guy doing his time and finding a better job elsewhere.*  I do have a problem with a guy with a couple of years in, taking the Trades Trg, expecially the specialty courses, and leaving as soon as (s)he finishes the Crse[/quote]

 It appears to be "the thing" to say in this thread, so I will not be surprised if someone comes in and calls me or my post stupid.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Feb 2009)

I wouldn't call you stupid, but just wait until you have some TI, and then one day you come to the realization that you are done, and so you release, and then you find out someone thinks you not worthy of "the oath".

Please....



			
				HeadLamp said:
			
		

> I also don't know how you came up with the "what, everyone who didn't finish their life serving is now some kind of low-life?",
> post stupid.



Maybe this?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess the Oath really is nothing but a piece of paper, without meaning.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Feb 2009)

I think measures to keep people in would be a good idea if the CF actualy needs it and operationnal commanders deem it necessary.  However, in the mean time, there is no such measures and you can't blame someone for taking an opportunity that was offered to him.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Feb 2009)

Exactly, if it didn't mean enough for your employer to "lock you in" to something before they send you on a course then why should it mean that much to the employee?

I have absolutely no problem with some kind of trade off, but to crap on those who leave for greener pastures while still following all the rules is just moronic......


----------



## HeadLamp (10 Feb 2009)

It really comes down to your values. Neither way you view it can ultimately be deemed "right or wrong", so it's really just a waste of space to be arguing about it.


----------



## armyvern (10 Feb 2009)

Bradboy said:
			
		

> I don't think I have to worry about that. My wife is currently in Gagetown on her 3's and hasn't even been posted yet. We're sure she's going to get Petawawa because I'm posted there and 2 CER is there (she's training to be a combat engineer). So we're looking at a few years before either of us gets posted. Which brings me to my next question. I'm currently on my second 3 year contract (continuing engagement). Will I be able to sign another 3 year contract if I remuster or will they make me sign the dreaded 19 year contract?



Hmmm ... so she's NOT posted to Pet. My how the story has evolved.

Why can't she be posted to 4 ESR in Gagetown ... or even 1 CER in Edmonton? Being your common law spouse, she'd be visible on your MPRR and you on hers ... I'm sure both career shops would consult with each other in order to avoid an unnecessary IR posting occurance, but they can do that by posting you to Ed and her to Ed as well (or Gagetown for example). If "a new base" is what's common place to occur within the MP trade for new remusters in, and your goal is to be posted together with your wife - I'm quite sure caeers will be able to put two and two together to satisfy both the CFs "needs" and your "wishes" ... not necessarily in Petawawa.

So again, if leaving Pet _still_ isn't an option ... perhaps it's not just the MP trade that isn't right for you.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm sure both career shops would consult with each other in order to avoid an unnecessary IR posting occurance









Sorry.  
I think my hubby and I were married for years before our CMs actually spoke to each other.


----------



## armyvern (15 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Sorry.
> I think my hubby and I were married for years before our CMs actually spoke to each other.



Yeah, but you're a _special_ case.  >

Career Manager briefing occured here in the Base Theatre Thursday morning past ... 

Here's the stats for Supply:

653 Married Service Couples and, of those:
168 Sup Tech to Sup Tech marriages.

Now, try accomodating _that_. In order to accomodate all _that_ above ... the other 60% of Supply Techs would have to do all the shitty postings/assignments their whole careers.

My outlook? Fuck that. These people married other service members (or fellow-Supply techs) knowing full well what Military service requirements and priorities are. Those priorities should not be accomodating the above. *If* they can be accomodated without it rolling out to screw the same 60% who always get screwed ... fine. And,_* that * _ means that my current base shouldn't be manned *below* strength so that Pet/Ed can be overstrength so that wifes can stay with their husbands -* it's killing us here. We are stretched to the max.* 

Sup Tech to Sup Tech MSCs should be very well aware of the fact that they *will* one day enjoy an IR posting - whether they like it or not - and if they don't like that idea and aren't good with that, then they should get the fuck out. They knew what their job was and what service prioirities were when they chose to marry.

I just had one of mine toss in his release on Friday ... because he's spent 2 years IR and still can't get posted near his wife ... this is his 3rd IR. That's too bad because he's an awesome "soldier first" and "soldiers first" Supply tech and it's the troops who will lose the ebnefits of his experience, fairness and common sense at the end of the day. Yet we have people who manage to milk/use/abuse/play the system and get away with it over and over and over again.

I speak of course of a case of being "compassionate" posted (2nd "C" posting to this very jammy spot for this member in question) - finding out you're merit listed for promotion - then coming off "compassionate status" - then finding out that promotion is "with posting to XXXX" - then all of a sudden showing up with a chit the next day reading "recommendation for TCat/below trade specs"..... all to avoid a posting to XXXX. What a very very jammy career that mbr has managed to enjoy. Can you say, never saw forest, never saw an ocean (even from the jetty)? And everyone who knows him just sits back and wonders how he mananges to continusously pull this all off. 

"Avoidance of posting" should be a damn immediately releasable offence.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Feb 2009)

I agree with a lot of your points, Vern.  I *am* special!  ;D

Hubby and I are Sig Op and PMed, pretty compatible trades, although mostly in field units or a brigade.  And no, I do NOT want to go to Edmonton.

I know a ton of Med Techs married to Med Techs.  Same situation with the whole Sup Tech MSCs.  You know what really kills me?  When a Med Tech goes on their PA course, a lot of the time they will post the Med Tech spouse to Borden as well.  This means two cost moves in two years!  I understand couples wanting to be together but the PA course?  The second year, the person on course is not even in Borden.  They're all over the country doing their different placements in hospitals.  Seems like a waste of money and time for what's basically a year.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2009)

Vern

If I remember correctly, there may be grounds for Release if a member continues to be using these tactics.  I am surprised that the Career Mgr has not dictated "Posted or Release" to the member after a reasonable period of time had expired.  The member obviously was given a "break" in which they should have reasonably rectified their situation.  It could come down to the old "Services No Longer Required".


----------

