# What’s in a Soldier? How to Rebrand the Canadian Armed Forces



## dimsum (16 Nov 2020)

From CGAI in Oct 2020:



> Abstract
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) needs to increase its recruitment numbers in order to sustain its capabilities. For this to occur, the CAF must somehow entice Canadians, who would not normally consider the CAF as a job opportunity, to apply. There could be a number of reasons why they would not consider the Forces, including the CAF’s demographics, its poor organizational culture or a lack of knowledge about the CAF’s policies, strategy and operations. To change these perceptions, the CAF must rebrand what it is to be a soldier, thus rebranding itself.
> 
> [More on link]



https://www.cgai.ca/whats_in_a_soldier_how_to_rebrand_the_canadian_armed_forces


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Nov 2020)

What the CAF needs is a strategy to keep it self in the forefront of Canadian society. Post on social media and else where positive stories of the CAF making a difference. No rebranding will work if people don't even know you are rebranding. This will require and active and aggressive public relations campaign.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> What the CAF needs is a strategy to keep it self in the forefront of Canadian society. Post on social media and else where positive stories of the CAF making a difference. No rebranding will work if people don't even know you are rebranding. This will require and active and aggressive public relations campaign.



Like many other big businesses, the CAF is well set up to market to Baby Boomers (b. 1943-1965-ish). Millennials require pretty much the opposite approach, and we will continue to struggle mightily until we figure that out:

https://appliedpsychologydegree.usc.edu/blog/psychology-of-successfully-marketing-to-millennials/


----------



## stoker dave (16 Nov 2020)

I think this an important and worthwhile topic.  

However, I thought the paper cited seemed a bit 'light'.  I don't know the author but there is a LinkedIn profile for a Paxton Mayer who is a PhD candidate, works at Global Affairs and has zero experience with CAF / DND.  I think it reasonable to assume that person is the author.  

The paper has lots of sweeping generalizations and a few stereotypes.  It lacks the necessary heft and depth required to support the necessary changes.  

Certainly a contribution to the discussion but not much more.


----------



## Quirky (16 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Like many other big businesses, the CAF is well set up to market to Baby Boomers (b. 1943-1965-ish). Millennials require pretty much the opposite approach, and we will continue to struggle mightily until we figure that out:
> 
> https://appliedpsychologydegree.usc.edu/blog/psychology-of-successfully-marketing-to-millennials/



Offer up a PS5/Xbox and a 24-pack of Monsters as a signing bonus. The current generation will flock to the recruiting centres. Stable salary, benefits and a pension isn't going to entice anyone these days.


----------



## Remius (16 Nov 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Offer up a PS5/Xbox and a 24-pack of Monsters as a signing bonus. The current generation will flock to the recruiting centres. Stable salary, benefits and a pension isn't going to entice anyone these days.



Agreed.  Unless you allow for postings of choice, flexible work schedules and jobs they can pick you won’t get too many takers from that part of that generation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2020)

First off;  the article says "What's in a soldier" and posts a picture of a sailor.

First step;  stop referring to everyone in the CAF as a 'soldier' (ya, ya I know the wording used in the UoS DAOD...).  I was a soldier at one point...and I am not anymore.  I wear an RCAF DEU, an Air Ops capbadge and Wings.  

The author is talking about public perception yet doesn't bother to take 2-3 lines to acknowledge and differentiate between a soldier, sailor or airman/woman.  Is it laziness or lack of knowledge, or both?  Doesn't matter...the article is part of the problem it is trying to solve.  Not everyone wants to 'be a soldier'.

Conclusion
The CAF has increasing issues in recruitment due to a variety of internal and external pressures, including changing Canadian demographics, changing characteristics of war and conflict, and a lack of budget resources with which to attract top talent. 

Ya, thanks.  All of us serving are the 'undesirables' that Tim Hortons and McDonalds turned down.   :


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Nov 2020)

I think military service like the church is a calling. I think the CAF has a built in recruitment service called Cadets. In the US we get our recruits from the High School ROTC program [all services] if a high school has an ROTC program. Recruits from this program used to start as a Private 2 and if they had some college they might be a PFC. The CAF could accelerate promotions as well.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/11/07/how-increased-footprint-in-high-schools-may-help-army-fix-recruiting-shortfall/


----------



## FJAG (16 Nov 2020)

Okay. It's me again with my hobby horse but I was particularly drawn to this part of the article.



> Why are there not more people interested in working for the CAF?  First, people understand that by joining the CAF, they are agreeing to potentially being moved across the country, placed in international locations, or deployed to a conflict or conflict-prone zone.10 Moreover, Canadian CAF bases are located in small communities in more socially remote places, with very few of them in or near Canada’s largest urban centres.11 This can be especially challenging if an individual has a family or a spouse, as schooling and spousal employment often become issues.



Admittedly, I'm not sure how much this author actually knows about the CAF or its components, but I note that the word "reserves" does not appear anywhere in the article.

I believe that the above quote accurately describes the problem we face.  There is nothing we can do about the "deploying into hostile places" issue -- that's what we are all about and we need to emphasize "service to country" to counter that but the basic lifestyle choices we can easily deal with. We could deal with that problem by emphasising the "Reserve Alternative" as a career choice and especially by restructuring the reserves to utilize every minute of school and university summer holidays for training and offering guaranteed summer employment and wages during this critical "cash poor" time of the individual's life cycle.  Add to that a more family/employer friendly post education service model with appropriate legislative protection and seamless inter mobility between the Reg F and Res F and you should be able to bulk up the numbers of serving members that you need if and when a real emergency happens.

As a precondition, the CAF needs to desperately change its attitude with respect to putting all of its eggs into the Reg F, forces-in-being basket and furthermore putting all those baskets in rural super-bases. Other armies are quite adept at having battalion and even company sized facilities spread throughout their communities. We should live and train more within the local communities concentrating on bases only when we do more complex field exercises etc. Many of the more modern skills that we need can easily be taught and reinforced on simulators or exercises that do not need large range facilities (although we will need those for a portion of the force for a portion of their time)

Slyly he points to a new article about creating a more effective Army through its reserves here.

 :2c:


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Nov 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think military service like the church is a calling.



And, like the church, is in precipitate decline.


----------



## OblivionKnight (16 Nov 2020)

Based on my personal experience, the process just took too long and there was discontinuity. I first applied in 2012 when I was 21 years old and remained in the process until 2019 when I was 28 years old, when I received a job offer. Unfortunately by that point, I was making a salary equivalent to the rank of Captain in the military. In addition, I purchased a house and worked close to home (about a five minute drive) near a major city. The military was essentially all I wanted to do, but over time, perhaps as a result of maturity and life experience, priorities shifted. I'm now enrolled in a master's program and in two years, my anticipated salary will be equivalent to a lieutenant colonel's; attaining this rank would probably take many, many years of hard-work, dedication, and making connections. I am still interested in the reserves (unfortunately they are not hiring for my specialty), but the regular force does not seem appealing at this point, unless salary was to match the civilian sector's. I think the younger generation is more drawn to money and individuality/expression, as opposed to the rigors of military training and the loss of the aforementioned as some would argue.


----------



## dimsum (16 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> As a precondition, the CAF needs to desperately change its attitude with respect to putting all of its eggs into the Reg F, forces-in-being basket and furthermore putting all those baskets in rural super-bases. Other armies are quite adept at having battalion and even company sized facilities spread throughout their communities.



Bingo.  A great example is the Australian Defence Force - their major bases are all near population centres (except RAAF Tindal, but that was for operational reasons).


----------



## garb811 (16 Nov 2020)

Like I've said before and will keep saying, for the vast majority of trades, getting people in the door is not the problem.  The SIP this year was a bit under 6k pers, even with COVID over 3x that number of files were opened at CFRG. The first problem to fix, and has been for years, is closing the deal at the recruiting center before people just give up.  OblivionKnight's experience is obviously more extreme than most but even after having acknowledge the problem years ago, I don't think any real progress has been made on getting people recruited while we are still within their attention span.


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> First off;  the article says "What's in a soldier" and posts a picture of a sailor.
> 
> First step;  stop referring to everyone in the CAF as a 'soldier' (ya, ya I know the wording used in the UoS DAOD...).  I was a soldier at one point...and I am not anymore.  I wear an RCAF DEU, an Air Ops capbadge and Wings.
> 
> The author is talking about public perception yet doesn't bother to take 2-3 lines to acknowledge and differentiate between a soldier, sailor or airman/woman.  Is it laziness or lack of knowledge, or both?  Doesn't matter...the article is part of the problem it is trying to solve.  Not everyone wants to 'be a soldier'.



As you did note, we ourselves say that any member of the CAF is a “soldier first” in DAOD 5023-0. That this term, used in our own directives, is offensive to some members, who instead self-identify as sailors, airmen/women or special operators, is a matter that is internal to CAF culture, a culture that many outsiders find at a minimum difficult to understand, if not completely impenetrable. Why would a civilian academic be expected to know that not everyone is actually a “soldier first”?

We need to be more open to civilian society if we want to expand our recruiting pool. And we probably also need to be more transparent to our civilian leadership if we want to maintain and even grow our budget share in the coming fiscal environment. But neither of those are helped by our often rather inward facing, stovepiped culture.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Nov 2020)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Like I've said before and will keep saying, for the vast majority of trades, getting people in the door is not the problem.  The SIP this year was a bit under 6k pers, even with COVID over 3x that number of files were opened at CFRG. The first problem to fix, and has been for years, is closing the deal at the recruiting center before people just give up.  OblivionKnight's experience is obviously more extreme than most but even after having acknowledge the problem years ago, I don't think any real progress has been made on getting people recruited while we are still within their attention span.



You mean, trying to change this experience?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> As you did note, we ourselves say that any member of the CAF is a “soldier first” in DAOD 5023-0. That this term, used in our own directives, is offensive to some members, who instead self-identify as sailors, airmen/women or special operators, is a matter that is internal to CAF culture, a culture that many outsiders find at a minimum difficult to understand, if not completely impenetrable. Why would a civilian academic be expected to know that not everyone is actually a “soldier first”?



Because most people outside the CAF don't even know what a DAOD is, or that they exist, I don't think the author was influenced by Para 2.4 of the UoS DAOD.  

The fact the article uses a picture of a female RCN Junior rank would suggest that the author is aware we have a Navy.  How many "soldiers" are in hard-sea trades of the RCN?  Likely the same number as there are in the hard-air trades in the RCAF;  zero.  

https://www.facebook.com/HMCSToronto/photos/3768439919846943  

HMCS TORONTO is proud to announce that a member of our ship has been chosen as Canadian Fleet Atlantic’s *Sailor* of the Quarter. Sailor 2nd Class Aman Sharma was selected as the Sailor of the Quarter from among many deserving candidates across the fleet. This is a momentous achievement for any sailor, as the Sailor of the Quarter is someone who embodies and excels at all qualities of being a warrior and professional mariner. 

Not everyone wants to be a "soldier"...


----------



## MARS (16 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> First off;  the article says "What's in a soldier" and posts a picture of a sailor.
> 
> First step;  stop referring to everyone in the CAF as a 'soldier' (ya, ya I know the wording used in the UoS DAOD...).  I was a soldier at one point...and I am not anymore.  I wear an RCAF DEU, an Air Ops capbadge and Wings.
> 
> ...



Huh...to me the pic is completely in line with the point the author is trying to make: the public sees the CAF as a monolith and thinks we are ALL white, male soldiers, which is likely why he advocates to 'rebrand'. That one pic shows anyone reading (and ideally potential recruits) that there are actually women in the CAF and they do things other than soldering. I can't imagine a better pic to use for an article such as this.


----------



## stoker dave (16 Nov 2020)

Upon reflection, the academic paper (really, more like a term assignment) referenced in the initial post was written by an academic who I don't think even spoke with anyone in DND / CAF in writing the paper. 

What if recruiters were asked "what is the biggest obstacle to enrolment?".  Anyone want to share their experience in that regard?


----------



## dimsum (16 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The fact the article uses a picture of a female RCN Junior rank would suggest that the author is aware we have a Navy.



It's possible that CGAI put the picture on there - the author might have no input into the pictures in the article.


----------



## lenaitch (16 Nov 2020)

Having an employer (gov't of Canada) that actually acknowledges your existence would be a decent start.

With 80% of the population living in urban areas and 90% living within 160km of the US border, I'm not sure how you square that with the need for operational, strategic and political deployment.  CFB Mirabel?  Garrison Toronto?




			
				Quirky said:
			
		

> Offer up a PS5/Xbox and a 24-pack of Monsters as a signing bonus. The current generation will flock to the recruiting centres. Stable salary, benefits and a pension isn't going to entice anyone these days.



Plus instant, ongoing and positive-only gratification.

Maybe ditch the uniforms so everyone can express their true inner self?


----------



## mariomike (16 Nov 2020)

My sister and her husband both stayed in for the whole ride ( 35 years - Regular Force ) as a service couple. Nice pension. They seem satisfied.


----------



## dimsum (16 Nov 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Having an employer (gov't of Canada) that actually acknowledges your existence would be a decent start.
> 
> With 80% of the population living in urban areas and 90% living within 160km of the US border, I'm not sure how you square that with the need for operational, strategic and political deployment.  CFB Mirabel?  Garrison Toronto?



Well, the old CFB Downsview buildings are still there.  

Mind you, if we started posting people en masse to Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, there will be complaints about the cost of living.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Nov 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, the old CFB Downsview buildings are still there.
> 
> Mind you, if we started posting people en masse to Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, there will be complaints about the cost of living.



DND would require its own long term housing strategy to make that would, likely involving enough PMQ's and apartments on base to accommodate all personal posted to the base.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Nov 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, the old CFB Downsview buildings are still there.
> 
> Mind you, if we started posting people en masse to Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, there will be complaints about the cost of living.



Those are the three largest cities in the country. The Centre of Gravity for recruiting, or should be considered as such.

If we aren't able to recruit a whole bunch of our regular force troops from these cities (like you know, a couple dozen reserve units already do) we really need to get out of the recruiting business and hand it all over to a skilled contractor.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> DND would require its own long term housing strategy to make that would, likely involving enough PMQ's and apartments on base to accommodate all personal posted to the base.



Which the Government all but decimated to ensure that CAF members and their families had nothing more than what the local citizenry had (or in some cases less, and more poorly supported...thanks CFHA (not!))  For the same underlying reason contracted Service Air was eventually eliminated (how dare family members travel Pri 5/SpaceA), I predict PMQs will never return to the numbers they were provided up until the late-80s to mid-90s.




			
				OblivionKnight said:
			
		

> Based on my personal experience, the process just took too long and there was discontinuity. I first applied in 2012 when I was 21 years old and remained in the process until 2019 when I was 28 years old, when I received a job offer. Unfortunately by that point, I was making a salary equivalent to the rank of Captain in the military. In addition, I purchased a house and worked close to home (about a five minute drive) near a major city. The military was essentially all I wanted to do, but over time, perhaps as a result of maturity and life experience, priorities shifted. I'm now enrolled in a master's program and in two years, my anticipated salary will be equivalent to a lieutenant colonel's; attaining this rank would probably take many, many years of hard-work, dedication, and making connections. I am still interested in the reserves (unfortunately they are not hiring for my specialty), but the regular force does not seem appealing at this point, unless salary was to match the civilian sector's. I think the younger generation is more drawn to money and individuality/expression, as opposed to the rigors of military training and the loss of the aforementioned as some would argue.



OblivionKnight, thank you for providing this snapshot of things going non-optimally...ie. Disappointingly.  Sorry to hear the CAF wasn’t able to attract you, but glad things are working for your career!

Regards
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Nov 2020)

OblivionKnight hit the nail on the head on why we fail to recruit people. There is no reason someone in 4th year university applying in November/December/January shouldn't have a job offer waiting for them by March/April to grab them as soon as they leave school. Same thing with High Schoolers and College kids. Anything more than 6 months should be the exception, not the rule and only for individuals with medical conditions that need deeper investigation or security clearance pre-screening. We consistently run people out of their desire to serve by making them wait years for a job offer and then years in the training system because we designed it to assume everyone is going to serve 25+ years so it's ok to waste the first 2 years of their career in PAT Platoon.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Nov 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> OblivionKnight hit the nail on the head on why we fail to recruit people. There is no reason someone in 4th year university applying in November/December/January shouldn't have a job offer waiting for them by March/April to grab them as soon as they leave school. Same thing with High Schoolers and College kids. Anything more than 6 months should be the exception, not the rule and only for individuals with medical conditions that need deeper investigation or security clearance pre-screening. We consistently run people out of their desire to serve by making them wait years for a job offer and then years in the training system because we designed it to assume everyone is going to serve 25+ years so it's ok to waste the first 2 years of their career in PAT Platoon.



I have also seen this for RMC, people have already gotten all their offers and selected a school before RMC even sends an offer.


----------



## lenaitch (16 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> DND would require its own long term housing strategy to make that would, likely involving enough PMQ's and apartments on base to accommodate all personal posted to the base.



All of which was torn down at Downsview.  It is now open space with some development plans once the feds and city stop fighting over it.

What former base buildings that are left have been re-purposed for commercial use.  I think the site is managed by Canada Lands Corp.  Completely hemmed in on all sides by residential and commercial.

One 7000' runway used by BBD, which is planning on pulling out and moving the Pearson.


----------



## FSTO (17 Nov 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> OblivionKnight hit the nail on the head on why we fail to recruit people. There is no reason someone in 4th year university applying in November/December/January shouldn't have a job offer waiting for them by March/April to grab them as soon as they leave school. Same thing with High Schoolers and College kids. Anything more than 6 months should be the exception, not the rule and only for individuals with medical conditions that need deeper investigation or security clearance pre-screening. We consistently run people out of their desire to serve by making them wait years for a job offer and then years in the training system because we designed it to assume everyone is going to serve 25+ years so it's ok to waste the first 2 years of their career in PAT Platoon.



This.
Back in the dark ages of 1989, pre cell phone and internet. 
From rural SW MB. I walked into the armoury in Brandon in Jan and got off the bus in Chilliwack on Sept 2.
In between that time I had a hernia surgery, did Naval Officer Selection Board, did all the paperwork and tests required in Winnipeg (2 hr drive away). All this with snail mail and land-line.
WTF HAS HAPPENED?


----------



## GK .Dundas (17 Nov 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This.
> Back in the dark ages of 1989, pre cell phone and internet.
> From rural SW MB. I walked into the armoury in Brandon in Jan and got off the bus in Chilliwack on Sept 2.
> In between that time I had a hernia surgery, did Naval Officer Selection Board, did all the paperwork and tests required in Winnipeg (2 hr drive away). All this with snail mail and land-line.
> WTF HAS HAPPENED?


 Simple , they've improved the system.
If it weren't so damned tragic it would be utterly hysterical.
I can't wait for someone to defend the process. Pardon me while I get some popcorn.


----------



## FJAG (17 Nov 2020)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Simple , they've improved the system.
> If it weren't so damned tragic it would be utterly hysterical.
> I can't wait for someone defends the process. Pardon me while I get some popcorn.



My joining the reserves in Toronto in 1965 took a little over two weeks. Being accepted as an OCTP officer candidate in 1969 took a little over two months.

Things seemed to work a bit quicker in the days of expensive long distance phone calls, snail mail and mimeograph machines.

I sincerely doubt whether as a young lad sick and tired of high school I would have had the patience to wait around for as long as the kids have to these days. Mind you in those days there were employment opportunities everywhere for a high school graduate.

What I can't for the life of me understand is that we've been bitchin' about the recruiting system since the 1980s. If we haven't been able to solve a problem that we've identified for forty years then maybe we aren't the employer of choice that we think we are.

 :cheers:


----------



## ballz (17 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Conclusion
> The CAF has increasing issues in recruitment due to a variety of internal and external pressures, including changing Canadian demographics, changing characteristics of war and conflict, and a lack of budget resources with which to attract top talent.
> 
> Ya, thanks.  All of us serving are the 'undesirables' that Tim Hortons and McDonalds turned down.   :



It might not be fully true across the CAF, but there are definitely certain trades where "top talent" has not and will not consider a career in the CAF. Finance is a good example. Go see how easy it is to attract someone who wants to be an accountant into the CAF... 95% have never even considered it as a career option, aren't even aware it's a career option, and to be quite honest are a bit repulsed by the idea when they do realize it. Their perception is exactly that the CAF is a consolation prize for people who had no other good options. And you know what? Money makes the world go around, having shitty accountants and controllers hurts any organization (in the private sector, it makes organizations fail and fold... in the CAF, it makes our financial management and all things that rely on it shittier than any private sector business could ever get without going bankrupt).

Another problem is what is "top talent?" For recruiting, we're really only looking at potential indicators. We use certain measures as predictors of success but no one really has any idea if the bilingual person with great academic performance, Captain of his university sports team, delivering soup to the homeless on a weekly basis, etc. etc. etc. is actually just a glue bag in disguise or not until they actually get put to work and start proving they are as good as they look on paper.

If actual top talent walks in through the door, someone who already has great work experience and a true track record of performance, we start them off at Private or 2Lt. This is a very unique problem, and I understand why it is this way, but it's a real challenge to attracting top talent.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> My joining the reserves in Toronto in 1965 took a little over two weeks. Being accepted as an OCTP officer candidate in 1969 took a little over two months.
> 
> Things seemed to work a bit quicker in the days of expensive long distance phone calls, snail mail and mimeograph machines.
> 
> ...




Ouch.  Harsh.

But perhaps not wrong...


----------



## CBH99 (17 Nov 2020)

I'm still perplexed by the stories I hear about some people's experience with our recruiting system.

By and large, it should be a pretty streamlined process by now - allowing interested applicants to be processed fairly quickly.  The exception being, as stated above, medical & security clearance issues that may require further investigation.



I feel lucky.  When I first joined in 2006, it was fairly straight forwards.  I sent my application into the recruiting center, was scheduled for my CFAT, medical, and interview all in the same day about 3 weeks later.  A few days later I did my fitness test.  And a few weeks later, I was sworn in.  Easy peasy.

We've all heard stories of us losing pretty awesome recruits due to the recruiting process taking forever, and then having to wait ages to get qualified once they do get in.  I thought most applications went through decently quickly, no?  

(Decently quickly = job offer within a few months of submitting initial application)


----------



## mariomike (17 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> My joining the reserves in Toronto in 1965 took a little over two weeks.



Likewise for me in 1970 when I turned 16, just in time for that year's SSEP. I was very thankful to get the trade I wanted.


----------



## QV (17 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'm still perplexed by the stories I hear about some people's experience with our recruiting system.
> 
> By and large, it should be a pretty streamlined process by now - allowing interested applicants to be processed fairly quickly.  The exception being, as stated above, medical & security clearance issues that may require further investigation.
> 
> ...



I can't understand it.  From the time I walked into a recruiting centre to getting on a Greyhound bus taking me to Basic, I don't recall it being much more than 5 or 6 weeks.  It wasn't long at all.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2020)

Or maybe they should stop wanting the *cough* best*cough* and start taking more lost souls like they did for me.    Imagine a 17 year old, grade 9 dropout, who had already done 21 days jail and a years probation, even getting past the security guy at a recruitment centre today?  Not a freakin' chance...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Nov 2020)

The CAF is its own worst enemy when it comes to recruiting.

A ineffective recruiting system hampers efforts to join. This isn't just a CAF problem but a government problem in general. It took me a year and a half to join the CAF. When I applied to work for the RCMP firearms lab, it took 2 years for them to basically get to the point of offering a job. At which point I turned them down since I had found a better paying job after completing college in a area I would rather live during that time. I have had friends I have tried to get into the Reserves, one in particular was extremely interested and is a exceptionally competent and intelligent man. He was ready to do it, but they took too long with his offer and had moved on to bigger and better things. 

The targeted shift from rural applicants (i.e. in general not the minorities they are trying to attract) to urban isn't going particularly well. They have closed recruitment centers in the more isolated areas, but those areas tended historically to attract more applicants than the urban centers. The urban centers haven't made up for the losses either. For example, where I am if someone wants to join the Regs they have to apply online or drive at least 3 hours to the nearest recruitment office to be told to apply online. Then get periodically called to drive the 3 hours to do the testing needed to join. Not exactly a convent process and would put a lot of people off joining. 

Online only applications are a brutal way to apply. I applied by paper, and I hate applying for anything online. If you want to say your not worth our time, this is how you do it. Your turning it from a experience you can guide someone in (ex. 'Hey what do I need to put here?' Oh you need to write your xxx there) to having to fight your way though it on your own time. It also means that when someone shows up to a recruitment center your basically telling them to GTFO and apply online, which isn't exactly something people like to be told. I understand its penny pinching which caused the online only process but its hurting the CAFs bottom dollar. I know if I drove 3+ hours to see a recruiter to just be told to go back home and apply online I wouldn't be happy. 

I could keep going as to the things that hurt the CAF when you do get in but we all have a idea of that. When retention sucks and recruitment sucks they are in for some hard times ahead. 

And for the record there is a good number of people in the CAF who are there just because they couldn't find anything better in life. Not saying everyone is, but I am wondering if that has something to do with the increase in older applicants over the years (it also doesn't mean they are bad troops, simply that they joined because there was nothing worthwhile for themselves civvy side which can adversely be a perk for the CAF as those people will stay until the end).


----------



## mariomike (17 Nov 2020)

I was just a part-time soldier. But, I loved it.

As far as the Regular Force is concerned, it seems to me that the job sells itself.

There's so many jobs in the CAF. If you qualify, you can apply for any one of them.

You get to serve your country. 

It's a job with guaranteed security, and opportunities.


----------



## FJAG (17 Nov 2020)

In many ways the problem is systemic to the government and not just DND.

Back in 2006-9 I worked three years in Ottawa on a project which had as part of it's staff three paralegals. I would lose those on a regular basis because mine were at entry level pay and the DoJ would hire them away at a higher pay rate. The trouble was that every time I would lose one the civilian hiring process had almost a six month cycle between identifying a need and filling the position (then add on another two to three months to learn the job - just in time to be hired away by DoJ - for whom it was a lot quicker because the candidate was already in the PS stream now)

Back with my law firm in Manitoba when we needed new staff we could generally do an advertisement, do all interviews within a week and hire the same day. Sometimes when we were robbing other firms (which we did often because our habit was to pay just a smidgen more then everyone else in the area) we had to wait for them to fulfill their two week notice period with their old firm. On the other hand we also had a list of prior acceptable interviewees and so could literally fill a position the day after a position became vacant.

This is why I keep laughing at using the term "agile" for the Army. The whole DND (GoC) structure is so process bound that agility is the least of its character traits. Sluggish is more apt.

 :cheers:


----------



## CBH99 (17 Nov 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Or maybe they should stop wanting the *cough* best*cough* and start taking more lost souls like they did for me.    Imagine a 17 year old, grade 9 dropout, who had already done 21 days jail and a years probation, even getting past the security guy at a recruitment centre today?  Not a freakin' chance...




Totally agree.

There are many young folks who are learning how to 'adult' the hard way - and as such, maybe have had a run in with the law, or credit issues.  They would probably make fantastic members, but never get the chance due to how process bound we are, and how they are a 'series of boxes to be checked off' at the recruitment level rather than an individual that may have some growth potential with the right environment.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Nov 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Or maybe they should stop wanting the *cough* best*cough* and start taking more lost souls like they did for me.    Imagine a 17 year old, grade 9 dropout, who had already done 21 days jail and a years probation, even getting past the security guy at a recruitment centre today?  Not a freakin' chance...



Great post.  I was a troubled youth.  I was orphaned young; and angry at the world.  I spent some time in the Kingston drunk tank. Dropped out of St Lawrence College and George Brown.  When I joined I was complete disaster.  But I had some good leaders around me who saw something showed some interest in my well being and now I am a completely different person.  Who is doing very well.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> This is why I keep laughing at using the term "agile" for the Army. The whole DND (GoC) structure is so process bound that agility is the least of its character traits. Sluggish is more apt.



I was having a discussion with a client recently (I lead a process improvement focused consulting practise) about a big organization he just took over from someone else, and he was lamenting how frustrated he was with all the red tape. He was adamant that he was going to change all that for the better, fast.

His comment was 'I guess you get what you lead.'  :nod:


----------



## FJAG (17 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I was having a discussion with a client recently (I lead a process improvement focused consulting practise) about a big organization he just took over from someone else, and he was lamenting how frustrated he was with all the red tape. He was adamant that he was going to change all that for the better, fast.
> 
> His comment was 'I guess you get what you lead.'  :nod:



Too true. 

Big doesn't mean that it needs to be hidebound in risk averse processes.

I think much of the red tape we wind around processes is based on:

1) someone screwed up and hired Aunt Marie rather than the best candidate so we develop a whole hockey sock full of "No Aunt Marie" policies (and many similar to this); and

2) we're afraid that if the process isn't rigorous in finding "the best candidate" we'll be sued for discrimination based on one or another characteristic (we'll get sued anyway regardless); and

3) we are trying desperately to find the very best candidate and therefore have a plethora of criteria to evaluate.

Trouble is we have nowhere near enough staff to unwind the red tape. (And honestly we shouldn't have them anyway. The aim is to get rid of the red tape, not hire more staff to process it. This is how HR empires are built.)

 :cheers:


----------



## dimsum (17 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> There are many young folks who are learning how to 'adult' the hard way - and as such, maybe have had a run in with the law, or credit issues.  They would probably make fantastic members, but never get the chance due to how process bound we are, and how they are a 'series of boxes to be checked off' at the recruitment level rather than an individual that may have some growth potential with the right environment.



How did we get that way?  When I joined, more than a couple of SNCOs were given the choice of "jail or CAF".  They were, in general, really good. 
 What changed in the recruiting process/culture and is it worth going back?  

OTOH, while we do get some amazing members, it could taint the whole military as "the employer of last resort", which isn't good either.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Nov 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> How did we get that way?  When I joined, more than a couple of SNCOs were given the choice of "jail or CAF".  They were, in general, really good.
> What changed in the recruiting process/culture and is it worth going back?
> 
> OTOH, while we do get some amazing members, it could taint the whole military as "the employer of last resort", which isn't good either.




I didn't know 'jail or the CAF' was still a thing?


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> How did we get that way?  When I joined, more than a couple of SNCOs were given the choice of "jail or CAF".  They were, in general, really good.
> What changed in the recruiting process/culture and is it worth going back?
> 
> OTOH, while we do get some amazing members, it could taint the whole military as "the employer of last resort", which isn't good either.




Well, then there's that whole 'retention train wreck' thing too:

THE CAF’S GREATEST CHALLENGE: RETENTION CULTURE

Table 1: Exit Survey Data: Reasons for Voluntary Release

An Exit-Survey was administered for those Regular Force members releasing from the
CAF between mid-2013 and early 2017. Table 1 below outlines recurring themes behind those
dissatisfaction factors in the 2008 Your-Say Survey and this Exit-Survey. Of those completing
the survey and identifying their reasons to leave, the results show that the top six factors were, in
descending order of highest discontent: job dissatisfaction, geographical stability, family reasons
(could be due to children or spouse’s needs), eligibility for pension benefits, career progression
and postings. With the exception of pension benefits, the overlap between the 2008 Your-Say
Survey and this Exit Survey is made on all other top named factors. However, eligibility for
pension benefits should not be discounted as a factor because military members do make the
decision to leave the institution on a voluntary basis in what is referred to as dysfunction
turnover; that which is defined as “when a high performing / not easily replaceable employee
leaves.”17 Therefore, this factor becomes quite important in that the CAF could have retained the
member past their 20 years of service (for those members grandfathered under the former TOS)
or 25 year pensionable service, and leveraged their knowledge and experience. 

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/286/elbeltagy.pdf


----------



## dimsum (18 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I didn't know 'jail or the CAF' was still a thing?



It's not.  I joined quite a while ago.


----------



## shawn5o (18 Nov 2020)

Boy, it sure sounds complicated nowadays. I joined in '74 - easy as pie.

I'm pretty sure prior to 74, the recruiting slogan was "Are you man enough for the challenge?" And when I joined, the slogan was "There's no life like it," how inspiring, eh

Back in '78, Ottawa ordered a trial run of women in some sort of cbt role, in Germany. From what I understand, it was a bust and Ottawa ordered a redo.

Then women were allowed into the infantry, and I understand the instructors in Wainwright couldn't keep their zippers up. Great job guys (sarcasm)

There was the Ytep which i thought was good (I know one Ytep graduate that decided the military was a great career - I last saw him in 2003 when I retired and he was a WO in JTF2.

There was special recruiting process for First Nations people. It seemed promising but I don't know if its still around.

Many of my friends have told me that they wouldn't join up as they didn't liked to be told what to do???  WTF, every job has bosses and supervisors, however, that is an attitude among many civilians.

I don't know what magic words will help with recruiting but the news from the media about the serious problems in the CF does damage the CFs reputation

 :2c:


----------



## mariomike (18 Nov 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think military service like the church is a calling.





			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, like the church, is in precipitate decline.



Reminds me of one of my favorite movies scenes,

“I’m a marine all through me. You got your cross, I got my globe and anchor. Me, I got the Corps like you got the church.”

He admits he doesn’t pray, but when she ( a nun ) asks if he believes in God, he responds, “Anyone with any sense believes in God.”

I've never been much of a church goer. But, I feel the same way.

Do your job. Live your life. Simple as that.


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, then there's that whole 'retention train wreck' thing too:
> 
> THE CAF’S GREATEST CHALLENGE: RETENTION CULTURE
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing; that was a good paper, but sounds like it's basically the same issues for decades affecting retention. I don't think it's a generational thing, but the web makes it easier then ever to see what other options are out there, and also for private companies to headhunt off places like LinkedIn.

Ironically in some areas we manage pers/expertise shortages by outsourcing a lot of work to ISSCs, which means that we're left with things like doing contract management instead of actual hands on bits, increasing job dissatisfaction in anyone who is looking for that kind of work within DND, while creating new external jobs that need the kind of expertise we've developed in our own people. Don't think it's a bad thing, as I find contractors that used to be in the mob tend to go above and beyond after having been in your shoes before, but if you drive the hands on people out and are left with folks that like policy and processes, can't see that making your organization anything other then less agile over the long term.

 ( ps had to laugh at the opening, thought that was laid on pretty thick until I got to the part about it being the ideal recruit, and not their personnel thoughts...had a mental picture of someone giving a motivational speech in front of a waving flag with dramatic music for a bit).


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Reminds me of one of my favorite movies scenes,
> 
> “I’m a marine all through me. You got your cross, I got my globe and anchor. Me, I got the Corps like you got the church.”
> 
> ...



There, FTFY


----------



## mariomike (19 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There, FTFY



I was in a transportation company. Less emphasis on fixing bayonets, more On Time Performance.


----------



## HiTechComms (19 Nov 2020)

Military is an itch I had to scratch. When I was 21 they told me DEO was bad because I had no leadership experience but I still applied. The wait was so long (1.5 years) that by the time they got back to me I had a job and a poor grad that's all I cared about. I declined the offer. This was in 2002. The recruiting process was a friggen nightmare compared to now imho. Although I think they are processing me a lot faster since I applied to a high in demand field.

I have applied again for DEO and I'll be honest in the fact I will be taking close to a 60% pay cut with out a guarantee I will actually make it. (I know I will but still don't count your chickens) 19 years of leadership experience solved the issue of no experience but I also feel that I will be better prepared for the Military life in my 40's then I ever was in my 20's. 

Millennial's are a lost cause I think CAF should go after gen z kids born post 2000+ as they seem to be far more pragmatic and conservative then millennial's.

I think the CAF would be better to simply adapt to the same messaging in the private sector and face the fact people will leave. No one in the private sector believes in loyalty to the employer. We pay you to do this, you get experience and if we don't appropriately remunerate then we can not cry about you leaving. Stream line the recruiting process a bit more, I do like the online process much better then silly paperwork.

Maybe Citizenship path would be better suited towards recruitment then trying to appeal to "patriotism and nationalistic duties" and I say this because of the messaging of the federal government. Mosaic, Post nationalistic, no mainstream core values messages are exactly the opposite of the people that will be required to give up their rights and privileges for Unity and nationalistic duties. 

The problem is not the CAF its our society and our governments messaging. 

As 1st gen immigrant myself I find it very confusing to be told that you are something else first and Canadian 2nd(even people born here tend to identify as a hyphen Canadian) and in that case why would I risk life and limb to die with that message in mind. Lastly when the majority of the people in this country have dual citizenship and the option of leaving if the poo hits the fan rather then dying for Canada or worse for a Politicians virtue signaling.

I highly recommend that everyone googles the following [poll "would you fight for your country"] I think Canada is at like 30%. At some point if their no unifying message that we are Canadians first I fear that there will be no Canada because everyone will voluntarily separate into their own ethnic or regionalist tribes. (I know that this is not a popular opinion)


----------



## MJP (19 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> I think the CAF would be better to simply adapt to the same messaging in the private sector and face the fact people will leave. No one in the private sector believes in loyalty to the employer. We pay you to do this, you get experience and if we don't appropriately remunerate then we can not cry about you leaving. Stream line the recruiting process a bit more, I do like the online process much better then silly paperwork.



Much of the CAF senior leadership is stuck on "It'S a CaLlInG, nOt A JoB" mode and can't adjust to the reality that for most people joining, it is just a job. The fact that we still have and tolerate toxic leadership, in general have poor human resources skills and continue to build structures and HHQs unfettered just makes leaving an easier choice when coupled with the other difficulties outlined in the article. 

The article as some have pointed out wasn't very in-depth in any one area but it did highlight the key areas that are worthy of further study.  Recruiting is one area that we just seem be regressing in despite better technology avail.


----------



## HiTechComms (19 Nov 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Much of the CAF senior leadership is stuck on "It'S a CaLlInG, nOt A JoB" mode and can't adjust to the reality that for most people joining, it is just a job. The fact that we still have and tolerate toxic leadership, in general have poor human resources skills and continue to build structures and HHQs unfettered just makes leaving an easier choice when coupled with the other difficulties outlined in the article.
> 
> The article as some have pointed out wasn't very in-depth in any one area but it did highlight the key areas that are worthy of further study.  Recruiting is one area that we just seem be regressing in despite better technology avail.



I agree with you. I see working in the Military as a job not a career or a calling. Its a contract job and that is all that it is to me. Career is a personal economic choice of employment paths. I have worked with contracts all my life the military job is a contract based on economic and socio exchanges and factors. Its a perfect time to recruit from the young generation since the unemployment rate is so high among the young gen.

I am just a guy so what do I know.


----------



## CBH99 (19 Nov 2020)

There are numerous things we need to improve as an organization, we can all agree on that.  Recruiting, a healthier workplace (not treating people like they are children), etc etc.

That being said, the title of the thread is "How to Rebrand the CAF" -- and I think some good points were made upthread.



*Target Gen Z, aka the kids born post 2000.*  

I am always REALLY impressed with a lot of the young people I see these days, and I really do believe they have so much potential if given the proper guidance & leadership, to be a really solid foundation for the CAF moving ahead


*Rebrand how we interact with people online*

For example, on Snapchat, the USMC has a short 'fitness challenge' they post every week.  It's professional, fun, and personally I find it a really cool way for people who might not be considering the military to see that short video and go "Hey, this is kinda cool."


*We need to offer a sense of adventure, it can't be "just another job"*

When people join the military, they join because they want to do something different than what else is available out there.  They have a sense of adventure, and want to know that during their time served, they have a chance of making the world a better place.

So we need to do a better job of really showcasing what our people do during a humanitarian crisis, SOF related content of our shadow warriors killing bad guys, and put a spotlight on the operations we are currently undertaking.  (The fact that most Canadians didn't know we had almost 1000 people in Iraq last year is a pure PR failure on our part.)

And while I realize our military is here to support our foreign policy, and most military deployments these days are of a joint nature - it wouldn't hurt for us to be seen as 'protecting good people from bad people'.  

Remember the flood of recruits that were pouring in while we were fighting those evil Taliban scum?  Yeah, that.



If young people see a chance to be delivering aid or medical assistance during humanitarian crisis overseas, or to kick down the door & shoot some dickhead in the face, or participate in a deployment that will REALLY help protect civilians from the evils of a civil conflict -- that, and given a real 'PR refresh', we could solve our recruiting issues.

The PR refresh being something akin to the USMC's constant engagement with young people on social media, and be seen as the good folks the world calls on when needed.  



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZhGx3AREcw

Perhaps a bit outdated and dark, but a refreshed campaign along similar lines would be a good idea.  I think anyway.  These were amongst our most successful recruiting videos, after all.


 :2c:


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I was in a transportation company. Less emphasis on fixing bayonets, more On Time Performance.



Believe me, that KPI would be more welcome than the bayonet thing in a Battle Group crossing the LD


----------



## stoker dave (19 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> If young people see a chance to..... kick down the door & shoot some fool in the face ....-- that, and given a real 'PR refresh', we could solve our recruiting issues.



I think you have touched on an important issue.  Perhaps part of the concern for the next generation is who is that "fool" that is being shot?  A farmer?  A combatant?  A spy?   Too many of the recent conflicts have muddied the issue of who is the enemy.  If we are fighting just to protect oil resources or just because the Americans are invading somewhere, that isn't a good reason and I think young people won't want to participate in something like that.  Older people, too perhaps.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Nov 2020)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I think you have touched on an important issue.  Perhaps part of the concern for the next generation is who is that "fool" that is being shot?  A farmer?  A combatant?  A spy?   Too many of the recent conflicts have muddied the issue of who is the enemy.  If we are fighting just to protect oil resources or just because the Americans are invading somewhere, that isn't a good reason and I think young people won't want to participate in something like that.  Older people, too perhaps.



Combat doesn't happen as often as video games and such make it seem. We really should push all of our other less glamorous OPs as well. You want people to join more, especially crippled support trades, highlight those areas, the medics, mechanics, cooks, instead of 10 second interviews with people and some quick shots. How about 10 minutes in the trades.

The fact we arent in the trades schools and pushing to steal that talent is a lost opportunity. We could get a lot of cooks, aircraft techs, etc by partnering with trade schools. Sit down and look at their curriculum, then set out if a person graduates where they would sit in CAF training, pre draft the PLAR for each program. Then push the career choice once they graduate.

Maybe even a hybrid reg/reserve model? Recognize they are in school, get them BMQ and BMQL on weekends and once they finish school its automatically transfered to the regular force.


----------



## dimsum (20 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Combat doesn't happen as often as video games and such make it seem. We really should push all of our other less glamorous OPs as well. You want people to join more, especially crippled support trades, highlight those areas, the medics, mechanics, cooks, instead of 10 second interviews with people and some quick shots. How about 10 minutes in the trades.
> 
> The fact we arent in the trades schools and pushing to steal that talent is a lost opportunity. We could get a lot of cooks, aircraft techs, etc by partnering with trade schools. Sit down and look at their curriculum, then set out if a person graduates where they would sit in CAF training, pre draft the PLAR for each program. Then push the career choice once they graduate.
> 
> Maybe even a hybrid reg/reserve model? Recognize they are in school, get them BMQ and BMQL on weekends and once they finish school its automatically transfered to the regular force.



Those are good points.  Those 10-minute (maybe shorter, maybe longer) spots could showcase not only the "interesting" stuff but the day-to-day stuff.  It should also show the thorns as well - people are going to call BS if everything is interesting in a CAF member's workday.  

As for the trade schools, it might be a matter of whether those schools let the CAF recruiters in.  I'm sure some do, but some may not.  It'd be something for CFRG to sort out.


----------



## mariomike (20 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> I see working in the Military as a job not a career or a calling. Its a contract job and that is all that it is to me.



To some, it's a Calling. To others, a profession, a career, or simply "the job".

Whatever a person calls it, loyalty to the organization is what counts. Just my opinion. 

My contribution to the CAF was very small. But, I got a lot out of it. More than just a paycheck. For that, I have always been grateful and speak well of it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Nov 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Much of the CAF senior leadership is stuck on "It'S a CaLlInG, nOt A JoB" mode and can't adjust to the reality that for most people joining, it is just a job. The fact that we still have and tolerate toxic leadership, in general have poor human resources skills and continue to build structures and HHQs unfettered just makes leaving an easier choice when coupled with the other difficulties outlined in the article.



And for those who do see it as a calling...the points you've noted about toxic leadership, etc can change a 'calling' to 'a job' as the years go by...


----------



## MJP (20 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Whatever a person calls it, loyalty to the organization is what counts. Just my opinion.
> 
> My contribution to the CAF was very small. But, I got a lot out of it. More than just a paycheck. For that, I have always been grateful and speak well of it.



Loyalty goes both ways and at the end of the day the CAF will forget you ten minutes after you leave. That isn't a criticism of the CAF writ large it is just the reality of an institution the size of ours. One of the problems we have is we still associated people wanting to change jobs/trades/get out of the military as disloyal rather than acknowledging that people change as they mature and want to do different things. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And for those who do see it as a calling...the points you've noted about toxic leadership, etc can change a 'calling' to 'a job' as the years go by...



Yup  :nod:  Love my job and my folks, hate the culture and "do more with less" attitude that is out there (except the people saying this always have the resources to add more people to their org or push down tasks to a lower level). I will say the pandemic has been great in getting rid of all the white noise activities that just absolutely consumed real work, hopefully it stays that way come post-pandemic time.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Nov 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Loyalty goes both ways and at the end of the day the CAF will forget you ten minutes after you leave.



Is it wrong that I'm hoping, desperately, that this will happen to me?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Nov 2020)

I think they forgot about you a decade or so before you left...


----------



## mariomike (20 Nov 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Loyalty goes both ways and at the end of the day the CAF will forget you ten minutes after you leave.



Just because you are loyal to something ( or someone ) doesn't mean it's going to be loyal to you. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## HiTechComms (20 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> To some, it's a Calling. To others, a profession, a career, or simply "the job".
> 
> Whatever a person calls it, loyalty to the organization is what counts. Just my opinion.
> 
> My contribution to the CAF was very small. But, I got a lot out of it. More than just a paycheck. For that, I have always been grateful and speak well of it.



Just to rephrase a little better. My name is on the contract and part of my personal ethos is agency and fidelity to my own actions. I am very ethically and morally bound to do what the contract obliges me to do and I will not break the contract. Never have and never will break a contract, and rarely ever do I engage in contractual relationships with out understanding them fully. My word is my honor.


----------



## MJP (20 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> Just to rephrase a little better. My name is on the contract and part of my personal ethos is agency and fidelity to my own actions. I am very ethically and morally bound to do what the contract obliges me to do and I will not break the contract. Never have and never will break a contract, and rarely ever do I engage in contractual relationships with out understanding them fully. My word is my honor.



Good thing a TOS is not a contract   But I understand what you mean.


----------



## FJAG (20 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is it wrong that I'm hoping, desperately, that this will happen to me?



That's entirely up to you, I think.

I always found retired/released members were of one of two kinds: those that stayed connected, moved to a house right next to the base, joined the mess and went to every happy hour, joined the regimental senate or some such equivalent and basically stayed in touch; and those that simply left and were never heard from again.

In either case you cease being a contributing member and are forgotten as to having any value. Somewhat regretfully I look back at when I was a younger and more callous youth and find that my opinion of those that kept hanging around was never very high. That doesn't speak very well for me but equally unfortunate was that my opinion was very much shared with my serving peers at the time. We're basically a fickle bunch.

 :cheers:


----------



## HiTechComms (20 Nov 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Good thing a TOS is not a contract   But I understand what you mean.



TOS is not a contract but TOS is part of the CAF employment contract. You don't agree to TOS but to an Employment contract. 
I spend way to much time looking at contracts. Little pedantic here.


----------



## MJP (20 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> TOS is not a contract but TOS is part of the CAF employment contract. You don't agree to TOS but to an Employment contract.
> I spend way to much time looking at contracts. Little pedantic here.



That wasn't my point rather that loyalty shouldn't hinge on what one's TOS says as that can be an overly restrictive view on what one can/should do in life for themselves.


----------



## HiTechComms (20 Nov 2020)

Fair enough. I didn't interpret your reply in that way, but now I understand what you meant now.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I always found retired/released members were of one of two kinds: those that stayed connected, moved to a house right next to the base, joined the mess and went to every happy hour, joined the regimental senate or some such equivalent and basically stayed in touch; and those that simply left and were never heard from again.



And then there's those who hang around Army.ca


----------



## dimsum (20 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> That's entirely up to you, I think.
> 
> I always found retired/released members were of one of two kinds: those that stayed connected, moved to a house right next to the base, joined the mess and went to every happy hour, joined the regimental senate or some such equivalent and basically stayed in touch; and those that simply left and were never heard from again.
> 
> ...



I'll play devil's advocate on that.  A few of the bases where I served, the Associates (who have no voting rights, or so I'm told) blocked some things that the serving members were trying to propose.  I understand that they came from a different culture, where Mess membership was mandatory and segregated by ranks, but unfortunately they can also be a hindrance to changes that can reinvigorate the messes.

I think places like 14 Wing Greenwood did a great job with the "separate" mess rooms served by one bar, but an all-ranks mess as well.  Guess where most people went to.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (21 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> Millennial's are a lost cause I think CAF should go after gen z kids born post 2000+ as they seem to be far more pragmatic and conservative then millennial's.



This isn't just a generational thing. I have relatives that spent their 30 years in uniform and got out recently, and if they had to start at the bottom in the CAF as it is, they would not have stayed themselves. Either way the CAF should be targeting Gen Z for the simple reason the youngest Millenials are about 24-26 now, and the area they should always be striving for is that 18-25 range.

*Edited because I miswrote oldest instead of youngest


----------



## lenaitch (21 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> This isn't just a generational thing. I have relatives that spent their 30 years in uniform and got out recently, and if they had to start at the bottom in the CAF as it is, they would not have stayed themselves. Either way the CAF should be targeting Gen Z for the simple reason the oldest Millenials are about 24-26 now, and the area they should always be striving for is that 18-25 range.



I don't think that's unusual in most professions.  After 31 years, no way I would have wanted to go back to shift work and rolling around in the mud, blood and beer.  As well, in the beginning you are pretty much isolated and oblivious to matters and issues that you become more exposed to as your grow seniority (and possibly rank); you're content to just go in and do your job.  I know a few who went back after retirement but it mostly part-time, often not front line, and their numbers are comparatively few.


----------



## Underway (21 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> This isn't just a generational thing. I have relatives that spent their 30 years in uniform and got out recently, and if they had to start at the bottom in the CAF as it is, they would not have stayed themselves. Either way the CAF should be targeting Gen Z for the simple reason the oldest Millenials are about 24-26 now, and the area they should always be striving for is that 18-25 range.



The oldest millennials are 39 or 40 now.  The last millennial was born in 1996 and is 24 now. But your age numbers are not incorrect.  You want to get people when they are young, because after that age they are less likely to make the changes needed to join the CAF.


----------



## Quirky (21 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Somewhat regretfully I look back at when I was a younger and more callous youth and find that my opinion of those that kept hanging around was never very high.



You mean those 30-35+ year in MWOs and Chiefs that are completely out of touch with reality, but stay in because the military is all they know? These are the people that need to be shuffled out before any significant change can happen. All the good leaders that could've been in those positions left years ago, so we are stuck with "whats left" to manage and lead. This isn't always the case, but some of the people in senior NCO positions, just wow. Doesn't matter what you know, it's where you've been and how many ticks in the boxes you've had.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> , and the area they should always be striving for is that 18-25 range.





			
				Underway said:
			
		

> You want to get people when they are young, because after that age they are less likely to make the changes needed to join the CAF.



I read this years ago. It is about the RCMP. But, could also apply to the emergency services and CAF, back in the day. 



> Prior to the early 1980s, the emergency services recruited new members aged from 19 to about 25. The practice was relatively customary of those days, and based on three precise beliefs from the RCMP. First, policing could not be the second career of an individual. Second, young men were more moldable than older individuals to the police subculture. Third, criminal activity was linked to adulthood; by hiring young adults, the RCMP secured more chances that those individuals would have a crime free background.





			
				lenaitch said:
			
		

> I don't think that's unusual in most professions.  After 31 years, no way I would have wanted to go back to shift work and rolling around in the mud, blood and beer.  As well, in the beginning you are pretty much isolated and oblivious to matters and issues that you become more exposed to as your grow seniority (and possibly rank); you're content to just go in and do your job.  I know a few who went back after retirement but it mostly part-time, often not front line, and their numbers are comparatively few.



In my opinion, in a seniority-based system, people who stay with the same organization for long periods of time are rewarded for their loyalty.

Personally, I would put loyalty ahead of cleverness. And never, EVER, admit the dept. has done anything wrong.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Nov 2020)

From a PR, organizational image, and recruiting perspective -- I'm curious to hear what some of your thoughts are in terms of "Rebranding the CAF" from some of the stereotypes/public perceptions we have now, to what it could be like if we "rebranded"?

Big ideas and small.  Curious to hear


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2020)

> It's not a career it's a calling



I've found the ones who shout this the loudest are the first ones to think they deserve special treatment when something doesn't go their way. They're also the first ones to dump the kool-aid glass they've been shaming everyone else for not drinking.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> From a PR, organizational image, and recruiting perspective -- I'm curious to hear what some of your thoughts are in terms of "Rebranding the CAF" from some of the stereotypes/public perceptions we have now, to what it could be like if we "rebranded"?
> 
> Big ideas and small.  Curious to hear



Don't lie to people anymore. There's a good marketing plan.

The CAF is about being able to destroy our nation's enemies. We are the 'in case of a threat to national survival, break glass' people.

The more we spin the BS about 'family, career, balanced lifestyle' and all that jazz, the more people will smell a rat and disturst us.

Especially the newer generations who connect most strongly with authenticity.

Tell them it's hard, lonely and dangerous, and that you won't get much of a choice about what you have to do sometimes. It's hard on families too, and we need to be clear why.

Also tell them it's exciting, you will be in continual learning and upgrading mode, and you will be part of a huge family filled with the finest people you will ever meet and will be friends with some of them for life.

Compared to civvy life, tell them the pay, benefits and living conditions aren't great, depending on the job you do or where you work or live, or how much you p*ss away on smoke, drink or gambling.

Also tell them that you won't care much about that when the waves are breaking over the bridge, the bullets are flying, or the slipstream whacks you in the face as you exit the starboard door of a Herc doing 120knts, at night.

The more we lie, or tell them what we think they want to hear, the less they'll believe us and the more our brand suffers.

My tuppence worth...


----------



## GR66 (21 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Don't lie to people anymore. There's a good marketing plan.
> 
> The CAF is about being able to destroy our nation's enemies. We are the 'in case of a threat to national survival, break glass' people.
> 
> ...



That would be a better selling point if the government actually provided the CF with the proper equipment to "destroy our nation's enemies" and presented the CF as a real military, not as glorified mall cops.  I think the general public doesn't really take the CF seriously as a military.  Some people may have an interest, but don't want to play in what they consider the minor leagues compared to other countries military forces.  Equip and present the CF as elite and you'll draw people that want to be part of an elite force.

 :2c:


----------



## dimsum (21 Nov 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> That would be a better selling point if the government actually provided the CF with the proper equipment to "destroy our nation's enemies" and presented the CF as a real military, not as glorified mall cops.  I think the general public doesn't really take the CF seriously as a military.  Some people may have an interest, but don't want to play in what they consider the minor leagues compared to other countries military forces.  Equip and present the CF as elite and you'll draw people that want to be part of an elite force.
> 
> :2c:



That's a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenario.  The public doesn't take it seriously, so the govt doesn't put money into it.  There's nothing to convince the govt otherwise (even with the antics down south) so they won't put money, so the public won't change their perception.

What D&B proposes is good - just be honest and let them decide if it's for them.


----------



## brihard (21 Nov 2020)

Question with our career structure, our human resources assumptions, etc... Take a given year's worth of recruits: How many do we need/want to stick it out to 6 years? How many to 10? 20? 30+?  I realize it will vary heavily by trade.

Do we need one monolithic recruiting approach where we try to pretend that anyone can have a good balanced family-yet-career-oriented service in the forces? Or is it fine to appeal to some with 'Come do cool stuff for 6 years ten frig off and take your school money' while telling others 'Come do some cool stuff for a while then pick up skills and switch to something different for a longer more sustainable career lifestyle'? Do we need to try to recruit combat arms NCMs the same way we try to recruit logistics or engineer or communications officers?


----------



## CBH99 (21 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Question with our career structure, our human resources assumptions, etc... Take a given year's worth of recruits: How many do we need/want to stick it out to 6 years? How many to 10? 20? 30+?  I realize it will vary heavily by trade.
> 
> Do we need one monolithic recruiting approach where we try to pretend that anyone can have a good balanced family-yet-career-oriented service in the forces? Or is it fine to appeal to some with 'Come do cool stuff for 6 years ten frig off and take your school money' while telling others 'Come do some cool stuff for a while then pick up skills and switch to something different for a longer more sustainable career lifestyle'? Do we need to try to recruit combat arms NCMs the same way we try to recruit logistics or engineer or communications officers?




That's a really solid point Brihard.  Well said.

One thing the US does seem to recognize is that not everybody is going to be there for the long haul.  They do a great job of promising adventure & access to education/opportunities for those that are in for a few years, and try to promise a decent work/life balance for those possibly seeking to stay in over the long haul.

Recognizing the 2 different general 'career paths' sort of speak, like you mentioned, would really help in how we present ourselves to those 2 very different types of prospects.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Nov 2020)

The average Reg F member lasts about 14 years (7% annual attrition, on average).  Exit spikes are seen at the end of the initial engagement (which varies by occupation and entry plan), at the 25 year point (initial pension eligibility) and at the 35 year point (maximum pension eligibility).


----------



## FJAG (21 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Question with our career structure, our human resources assumptions, etc... Take a given year's worth of recruits: How many do we need/want to stick it out to 6 years? How many to 10? 20? 30+?  I realize it will vary heavily by trade.
> 
> Do we need one monolithic recruiting approach where we try to pretend that anyone can have a good balanced family-yet-career-oriented service in the forces? Or is it fine to appeal to some with 'Come do cool stuff for 6 years ten frig off and take your school money' while telling others 'Come do some cool stuff for a while then pick up skills and switch to something different for a longer more sustainable career lifestyle'? Do we need to try to recruit combat arms NCMs the same way we try to recruit logistics or engineer or communications officers?



Absolutely bang on. We tend to get too focused on getting everyone prepped for a long term career with broad experience when what we need just as much, if not more, is a large number of people who can fill the ranks with the bayonets or spanners that they need to do their job. Think of how many more vehicles could be maintained if we didn't run craftsmen or their supervisors off on courses on a continuing basis and left them in the workshops more.

Stuff like this doesn't make sense. At my twelve year mark I'd been accepted to Law school as a mature student the following year but wanted to finish off my undergraduate qualifications so that I could go as a regular academic student. Concurrently I was loaded on the Army's then six month long Command and Staff course in Kingston. I marched myself in to see the CO and told him that right after the course in January I'd be giving him my six month notice so give the course to someone who will be staying around. Long story short: I was sent on course and loved it like I knew I would; finished my last correspondence course with UofM; and gave my six months in January like advertised. I never quite understood why I was still sent on the course. Maybe they thought it would change my mind? As it was a perfectly good career opportunity was wasted on someone who had already indicated he wasn't interested in the career anymore. (I guess not totally wasted as I put in another 28 years as a reserve grunt and legal officer after that, but who knew it would go that way?)

I know it's hard to tell at the beginning who are the folks who are in it for the long haul but maybe if at the beginning we took in more folks for short contracts with the intent of working them and holding on only to the best and most dedicated who have shown their commitment for further advancement and letting the rest move on. (Of course how would we then fill all those empty cubicles in Ottawa?)

 :cheers:


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Absolutely bang on. We tend to get too focused on getting everyone prepped for a long term career with broad experience when what we need just as much, if not more, is a large number of people who can fill the ranks with the bayonets or spanners that they need to do their job. Think of how many more vehicles could be maintained if we didn't run craftsmen or their supervisors off on courses on a continuing basis and left them in the workshops more.



The fact VOR rates went down during the initial stages of covid, during critical manning/ essential only tasks, to me shows techs get bogged down with a lot of extra stuff that prevents them from turning wrenches.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Stuff like this doesn't make sense. At my twelve year mark I'd been accepted to Law school as a mature student the following year but wanted to finish off my undergraduate qualifications so that I could go as a regular academic student. Concurrently I was loaded on the Army's then six month long Command and Staff course in Kingston. I marched myself in to see the CO and told him that right after the course in January I'd be giving him my six month notice so give the course to someone who will be staying around. Long story short: I was sent on course and loved it like I knew I would; finished my last correspondence course with UofM; and gave my six months in January like advertised. I never quite understood why I was still sent on the course. Maybe they thought it would change my mind? As it was a perfectly good career opportunity was wasted on someone who had already indicated he wasn't interested in the career anymore. (I guess not totally wasted as I put in another 28 years as a reserve grunt and legal officer after that, but who knew it would go that way?)



What you described back then I have seen many times, and it puzzles me why when a soldier has put in an OT or a CT (for sake of example and argument a different trade in this case) and still waste resources for sending them on a career course for a trade they are leaving. While in the case of PLQ I can see how it helps the member, I see it as those resources could send someone who is sticking around with the unit on a course, and let the members next unit foot the bills for their career courses.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (22 Nov 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I don't think that's unusual in most professions.  After 31 years, no way I would have wanted to go back to shift work and rolling around in the mud, blood and beer.  As well, in the beginning you are pretty much isolated and oblivious to matters and issues that you become more exposed to as your grow seniority (and possibly rank); you're content to just go in and do your job.  I know a few who went back after retirement but it mostly part-time, often not front line, and their numbers are comparatively few.



Except there has been significant changes to how we do the jobs and not necessarily for the better. For example the Navy of today and the Navy of 30 years ago are no where near the same beast.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> The oldest millennials are 39 or 40 now.  The last millennial was born in 1996 and is 24 now. But your age numbers are not incorrect.  You want to get people when they are young, because after that age they are less likely to make the changes needed to join the CAF.



I miswrote oldest instead of youngest, my bad. Not only that the younger they are the more we can train them. Up until 25 the brain is still developing after that point it is somewhat fixed. Also the physical aspect is a big part too as things like the infantry aren't necessarily best suited to older people.


----------



## mariomike (22 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Not only that the younger they are the more we can train them.



My PRes BMQ was entirely 16-17 year-old boys. They say at that age, our brains are more like soft, impressionable Play-Doh. Moldable.


----------



## lenaitch (22 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Except there has been significant changes to how we do the jobs and not necessarily for the better. For example the Navy of today and the Navy of 30 years ago are no where near the same beast.



Oh, for sure.  I imagine few professions are the same over a 30-year time span; perhaps artisanal candle maker.  My comments were in response to the post that stated: _"I have relatives that spent their 30 years in uniform and got out recently, and if they had to start at the bottom in the CAF as it is, they would not have stayed themselves."  _ Kind of a 'if I knew then what I know now" perspective.

It's also an age thing.  A few years we had a member retire with 50 years service, still a road warrior.  I can't imagine.

Interesting comment about the US experience.  I think military service as part of one's 'life arc' is more engrained in US culture and they get more opportunity to continue their trades on a part-time basis in their National Guards.


----------



## mariomike (22 Nov 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> A few years we had a member retire with 50 years service, still a road warrior.



Almost be worth getting a ticket from him / her, just for the experience.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnvPJtJf6uo



			
				lenaitch said:
			
		

> Interesting comment about the US experience.  I think military service as part of one's 'life arc' is more engrained in US culture and they get more opportunity to continue their trades on a part-time basis in their National Guards.



Possibly, at least in part, because they had the Draft until 1973.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> You mean those 30-35+ year in MWOs and Chiefs that are completely out of touch with reality, but stay in because the military is all they know? These are the people that need to be shuffled out before any significant change can happen. All the good leaders that could've been in those positions left years ago, so we are stuck with "whats left" to manage and lead. This isn't always the case, but some of the people in senior NCO positions, just wow. Doesn't matter what you know, it's where you've been and how many ticks in the boxes you've had.



WO/PO1s and above aren't Snr NCO.  They are Warrant/Petty Officers.  Just to keep it accurate...https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/military-identity-system/air-force-ranks.html#step5


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> WO/PO1s and above aren't Snr NCO.  They are Warrant/Petty Officers.  Just to keep it accurate...https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/military-identity-system/air-force-ranks.html#step5



OK Boomer   :sarcasm:


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> WO/PO1s and above aren't Snr NCO.  They are Warrant/Petty Officers.  Just to keep it accurate...https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/military-identity-system/air-force-ranks.html#step5



Uh... your link says they are 'Warrant officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers'. If you go to the main page, they are all grouped as 'Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers' (from Sgt up).

Did I miss something? Think senior NCO is generally understood to be Sgt and up (which is a bit confusing as there are no junior NCOs, but anyway).


----------



## MJP (22 Nov 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Uh... your link says they are 'Warrant officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers'. If you go to the main page, they are all grouped as 'Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers' (from Sgt up).
> 
> Did I miss something? Think senior NCO is generally understood to be Sgt and up (which is a bit confusing as there are no junior NCOs, but anyway).



It is common vernacular for all but pendants . The QR&Os makes the distinctionclearer but for 99% of the CAF we lump them all together to no ill effect.


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Nov 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> It is common vernacular for all but pendants . The QR&Os makes the distinctionclearer but for 99% of the CAF we lump them all together to no ill effect.



Yeah, I got that; I was just confused as it was a sort of pedant argument strain using a common vernacular ref. :dunno:

Anyway, agree that the assumption that it has to be a long term job should be relooked at, especially as a lot of the second careers are directly related to CAF support in some way. If knowledge retention was a bigger concern, they could make transition to DND civie jobs a lot easier. Found it really stupid to have to do the full testing for a position that I was previously qualified to do with a posting message.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Nov 2020)

I tried to quote someone here, but my computer isn't liking me right now...  (P.S.  Don't update the 'newest windows update' nonsense if possible.  Not liking it!)

But someone made a good point about the US military knowing that a vast majority of it's people aren't going to make a 20 year + career out of it.  Get in, do some cool stuff for a few years, have a chance to participate in operations that will be exciting & globally relevant, take your education money & off ya go!

One factor that might play into the above is how much more expensive college & university is in the US, compared to here.  That could be a real driving force behind young people choosing to do a stint, maybe extend, and then leave - especially folks from low income areas that only have student loans or military service as options.


 :dunno: :2c:


----------



## FJAG (22 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> ... someone made a good point about the US military knowing that a vast majority of it's people aren't going to make a 20 year + career out of it.  Get in, do some cool stuff for a few years, have a chance to participate in operations that will be exciting & globally relevant, take your education money & off ya go!
> 
> One factor that might play into the above is how much more expensive college & university is in the US, compared to here.  That could be a real driving force behind young people choosing to do a stint, maybe extend, and then leave - especially folks from low income areas that only have student loans or military service as options.
> 
> :dunno: :2c:



I'm in that category. We need to make the military a viable service to country career option for our young folks (especially for reservists) with a concept whereby we fund, in part their education, employ them for a set period of time to gain experience and then also provide a funding element to help them get further education at the end of their "short" career.

Obviously with any "up-front" funding there needs to be a term of obligatory service attached and with "post service" education benefits there must be a criteria of satisfactorily completed service.

What we need is a good option for high school kids to look at which says "yup, I get some pay, some experience and an education. That makes serving worthwhile." We can then look at career development for senior NCOs and officers for those that have gotten the bug for further service.

In order for reservists, in particular, to stay on they must be able to clearly see that there is a balanced, scheduled life between their family, their civilian careers and their military ones. For the regulars there also needs to be a balance for the family. Fewer and shorter away from home career courses and fewer geographical postings are major elements in that. Over the decades the CAF has been converting more and more "could knows" and "should knows" into "must know" requirements for people to learn in order to advance. We need to reverse that trend and focus on the true essentials in order to give folks more stability. Not every private soldier needs to have a marshal's baton in his or her knapsack.

 :2c:


----------



## mariomike (22 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> But someone made a good point about the US military knowing that a vast majority of it's people aren't going to make a 20 year + career out of it.



Their civil service stepped up.

For example, to apply in NYC as a firefighter or paramedic the cut off age for civilians is prior to their 29th birthday. However, for military veterans the cut off age is prior to their 36th birthday. Active military can subtract up the amount of time you spent on duty from your actual age. The maximum you can subtract is 6 years.

For education, civilians must have a high school diploma, and at least 15 college credits. However, military vets are only required to have full-time military service with an honorable discharge.

Perhaps our emergency services might consider stepping up for veterans in a similar fashion in the future?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2020)

Brihard just posted something on FB pertaining to the OPP now doing something for Vets.  I'll let him have the honours...


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm in that category. We need to make the military a viable service to country career option for our young folks (especially for reservists) with a concept whereby we fund, in part their education, employ them for a set period of time to gain experience and then also provide a funding element to help them get further education at the end of their "short" career.
> 
> Obviously with any "up-front" funding there needs to be a term of obligatory service attached and with "post service" education benefits there must be a criteria of satisfactorily completed service.
> 
> ...



I think if we did this for some trades that would be a big asset; it's really hard to get apprenticeships. Most don't translate over, but electrician is a good example where we they can get credit and go for the industrial electrician ticket. I'm sure the control techs and others probably works well too, but no reason we can't partner with colleges for a lot of the basic knowledge courses in a lot of cases then do some delta training.


----------



## Underway (22 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> One factor that might play into the above is how much more expensive college & university is in the US, compared to here.  That could be a real driving force behind young people choosing to do a stint, maybe extend, and then leave - especially folks from low income areas that only have student loans or military service as options.



Free Health Care.


----------



## FJAG (22 Nov 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think if we did this for some trades that would be a big asset; it's really hard to get apprenticeships. Most don't translate over, but electrician is a good example where we they can get credit and go for the industrial electrician ticket. I'm sure the control techs and others probably works well too, but no reason we can't partner with colleges for a lot of the basic knowledge courses in a lot of cases then do some delta training.



I think that's really where we could and should make our biggest headway. The fundamentals for everything from trucker, to cook, to automotive mechanic, to law enforcement, to heavy equipment operator, to computer systems, to administration, to health services is taught at community colleges. Fund tuition for those courses then do paid summer conversion courses for military applications and you not only have trained people for a few years but individuals with the education and practical experience to get a civilian job afterward. Again, add a period of obligatory service and then make the reserves an attractive option to keep their hand in the game and make a few extra bucks. 

Same-same for officers and civilian universities (if we really insist on keeping up that educated officer corps charade - we've  :deadhorse: in a different thread)

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (22 Nov 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Brihard just posted something on FB pertaining to the OPP now doing something for Vets.  I'll let him have the honours...



Ontario public service, not OPP - however the OPP have a good reputation as a veteran-friendly police service. Basically I understood it to be that vets can now hire as if 'internal' to the provincial public service, same as we can for the feds.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm in that category. We need to make the military a viable service to country career option for our young folks (especially for reservists) with a concept whereby we fund, in part their education, employ them for a set period of time to gain experience and then also provide a funding element to help them get further education at the end of their "short" career.
> 
> Obviously with any "up-front" funding there needs to be a term of obligatory service attached and with "post service" education benefits there must be a criteria of satisfactorily completed service.
> 
> ...



Some of this is in place. The introduction of the Education Training Benefit through VAC is pretty sweet. Serve 6 years full time or equivalent, you get $40,000 for school. Do 12 years, you get $80k. I don't know if CAF recruiting is leveraging this yet, but the fact that you can do six years of service, pick up some good skills in the course of that, and then get out and take the ETB for $40k of schooling (paid for by another federal department, at that) is a pretty sweet deal. 

My 14 years of so of PRes time added up to about 6 years, 4 months. Once some other stuff settles down in life I've got my eye on a pretty decent looking Master's degree, paid for by VAC.


----------



## lenaitch (22 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Ontario public service, not OPP - however the OPP have a good reputation as a veteran-friendly police service. Basically I understood it to be that vets can now hire as if 'internal' to the provincial public service, same as we can for the feds.



One of the big obstacles in years past was pension portability, even within different plans in Ontario.  It used to be if you went from municipal to the OPP you carried two 'partial pensions' for the sum of your career (or took a buy-out), and the rules were different if your department was absorbed or you simply patched over.  There was simply no federal-provincial portability.  There are now pension portability agreements both within the various Ontario plans and between all or most provincial plans and the federal plans.  Of course actuarial gymnastics are involved.


----------



## brihard (23 Nov 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> One of the big obstacles in years past was pension portability, even within different plans in Ontario.  It used to be if you went from municipal to the OPP you carried two 'partial pensions' for the sum of your career (or took a buy-out), and the rules were different if your department was absorbed or you simply patched over.  There was simply no federal-provincial portability.  There are now pension portability agreements both within the various Ontario plans and between all or most provincial plans and the federal plans.  Of course actuarial gymnastics are involved.



Then there’s the army reserve pension that doesn’t properly transfer over to friggin’ anything.


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Then there’s the army reserve pension that doesn’t properly transfer over to friggin’ anything.



It really is a joke, but that in my opinion is part of a larger issue of a disregard for how important a viable and attractive reserve is to the defense establishment as a whole.

Another issue I see is that if you are reg force, transfer reserve, but your trade isn't a reserve one, you get screwed really fast. Watched a Mat tech spend his reserve time as a Corporal even though he had his plq/jlc, why? Mat tech doesn't exist in the reserves so his trade and position didn't exist and thus he couldn't be promoted. Encountering the same issue trying to pull ex reg force members into the reserves.


----------



## Underway (23 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Then there’s the army reserve pension that doesn’t properly transfer over to friggin’ anything.



Really?  Good friend of mine had his Reserve pension transfer over and add to his Waterloo Regional Police pension.  Anything that the Reg F pension transfers to the reserve one should.  Its the same pension just different calculations.



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Another issue I see is that if you are reg force, transfer reserve, but your trade isn't a reserve one, you get screwed really fast. Watched a Mat tech spend his reserve time as a Corporal even though he had his plq/jlc, why? Mat tech doesn't exist in the reserves so his trade and position didn't exist and thus he couldn't be promoted. Encountering the same issue trying to pull ex reg force members into the reserves.



Yah lots of trades don't have reserve options.  Nav Res just created Naval Engineering placeholders instead of the GSO switch.  You can still be promoted as a GSO but I've no idea if you can advance in your career as a CSE for example.


----------



## mariomike (23 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The fundamentals for everything from trucker, to cook, to automotive mechanic, to law enforcement, to heavy equipment operator, to computer systems, to administration, to health services is taught at community colleges. Fund tuition for those courses then do paid summer conversion courses for military applications and you not only have trained people for a few years but individuals with the education and practical experience to get a civilian job afterward.



For QL5 Med Tech to Primary Care Paramedic ( Ontario PCP ),
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/130059/post-1566031.html#msg1566031

Medics requiring to maintain a license  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/107868/post-1180343.html#msg1180343


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Nov 2020)

Underway said:
			
		

> Yah lots of trades don't have reserve options.  Nav Res just created Naval Engineering placeholders instead of the GSO switch.  You can still be promoted as a GSO but I've no idea if you can advance in your career as a CSE for example.



I get it if they aren't qualified but a fully qualified soldier should be able to just go to the PRes from the regs and keep their trade.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Nov 2020)

So I just thought of a potential way for them to attract recruits. Imagine if they as part of a signing bonus wiped out a applicants student debt in exchange for 'x' years served (would vary depending on the overall amount involved). We pay people to go to college or university, why not skip the steps of having them go on our dime and just kill whatever expenses are left at the end? It would even be cheaper than something like NCM-SEP or ROTP because you aren't paying their salary well they are attending school and you don't have to worry about the person dropping out as they already would have passed. Plenty of people who finish university with 40-80k debt at the end and not very good job prospects, giving them a opportunity to instantly make it disappear would be pretty tempting.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> So I just thought of a potential way for them to attract recruits. Imagine if they as part of a signing bonus wiped out a applicants student debt in exchange for 'x' years served (would vary depending on the overall amount involved). We pay people to go to college or university, why not skip the steps of having them go on our dime and just kill whatever expenses are left at the end? It would even be cheaper than something like NCM-SEP or ROTP because you aren't paying their salary well they are attending school and you don't have to worry about the person dropping out as they already would have passed. Plenty of people who finish university with 40-80k debt at the end and not very good job prospects, giving them a opportunity to instantly make it disappear would be pretty tempting.



Bribery is a lousy way to incent self-sacrifice on the scale and consistency required from, say, a rifleman in an Infantry Platoon.

For that you need to pull out the really big guns, like, you know, self-esteem.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/building-self-esteem/


----------



## stoker dave (23 Nov 2020)

Slightly off topic... .but when I was leaving Reg F after my service, I recall there was a line on a form that said "Tick here if you wish to transfer to the reserves" or something like that. 

I didn't know much about the reserves and didn't tick the box.  I gave it no more thought than that.  

Perhaps the reserves could to a bit better job of selling themselves to people leaving to try to bring over Reg F people that are leaving.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Nov 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> So I just thought of a potential way for them to attract recruits. Imagine if they as part of a signing bonus wiped out a applicants student debt in exchange for 'x' years served (would vary depending on the overall amount involved). We pay people to go to college or university, why not skip the steps of having them go on our dime and just kill whatever expenses are left at the end? It would even be cheaper than something like NCM-SEP or ROTP because you aren't paying their salary well they are attending school and you don't have to worry about the person dropping out as they already would have passed. Plenty of people who finish university with 40-80k debt at the end and not very good job prospects, giving them a opportunity to instantly make it disappear would be pretty tempting.



We've done this on occasion; that was actually in place when I joined. It paid out partially when you finished basic then got the remainder at some point later in the training (maybe 2 years later?). Not actually why I joined, but wasn't going to say no. Didn't hurt anything though, and was nice to have wiped out my small student loan and otherwise get started on a down payment for a home.

Thought they had lost my application or something though as it took over a year before I heard anything back though, so was in the process for getting ready to go teach english overseas when they finally got in touch with me, did some navy screening, then started basic a few months later.


----------



## mariomike (23 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> https://psychcentral.com/lib/building-self-esteem/



Can't put a price on that. I give the credit to our Sergeants.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Nov 2020)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic... .but when I was leaving Reg F after my service, I recall there was a line on a form that said "Tick here if you wish to transfer to the reserves" or something like that.
> 
> I didn't know much about the reserves and didn't tick the box.  I gave it no more thought than that.
> 
> Perhaps the reserves could to a bit better job of selling themselves to people leaving to try to bring over Reg F people that are leaving.



Great observation. Sadly, the CAF has ensured no one will want to do that now because the VAC Education grant is not available to anyone who stays in the CAF, in any capacity, following retirement.

I've spoken to several 40/50 year old-ish serving members who considered staying on in the reserves following retirement, but the $40k/ $80k payouts were just too tempting.

'Et tu Brute?'


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I get it if they aren't qualified but a fully qualified soldier should be able to just go to the PRes from the regs and keep their trade.



That's a bit of a fundamental question, though, isn't it? Is a reserve unit primarily a collection of individual augmentees, or is it primarily a tactical unit with a clearly defined role within it's Corps/Branch? And I've seen units flip-flop over that question over the years. When I was in the reserves, my city had armour and infantry units, so of course (what were the odds?) we seemed to regularly have ex-Reg Force artillerymen (MBdr, Sgt) release in the local area wanting to do reserve service, but we'd have to bust them to Corporal, even though we had a desperate shortage of NCOs. A friend of mine (ex-Reg Force, land DEU but purple MOSID) was told by his local Army Reserve unit that they weren't interested in him as a Captain unless he OT'd to Infantry Officer -- he instead joined the Naval Reserve, who had less use for his AOC/ATOC but were happy to employ him as a sea officer, general purpose, once he had a few short top-up courses. I've heard reports that some army reserve units are much more flexible, happily employing on Class A trained members from whatever occupation walks through their doors. 

Personally, I lean towards the flexible approach -- if you have an RCEME MWO or an Int Major, both with 25 years experience, and they want to do Class A in their home town -- jump all over them even if they don't happen to match the infantry/armour/artillery flavour of the local reserve unit.


----------



## garb811 (23 Nov 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> That's a bit of a fundamental question, though, isn't it? Is a reserve unit primarily a collection of individual augmentees, or is it primarily a tactical unit with a clearly defined role within it's Corps/Branch? And I've seen units flip-flop over that question over the years. When I was in the reserves, my city had armour and infantry units, so of course (what were the odds?) we seemed to regularly have ex-Reg Force artillerymen (MBdr, Sgt) release in the local area wanting to do reserve service, but we'd have to bust them to Corporal, even though we had a desperate shortage of NCOs. A friend of mine (ex-Reg Force, land DEU but purple MOSID) was told by his local Army Reserve unit that they weren't interested in him as a Captain unless he OT'd to Infantry Officer -- he instead joined the Naval Reserve, who had less use for his AOC/ATOC but were happy to employ him as a sea officer, general purpose, once he had a few short top-up courses. I've heard reports that some army reserve units are much more flexible, happily employing on Class A trained members from whatever occupation walks through their doors.
> 
> Personally, I lean towards the flexible approach -- if you have an RCEME MWO or an Int Major, both with 25 years experience, and they want to do Class A in their home town -- jump all over them even if they don't happen to match the infantry/armour/artillery flavour of the local reserve unit.


I know a ex-Reg Force MPO who became the OC of a Support Battery in an Artillery Regt. I know of another ex-Reg Force MPO who became an OC in a Svc Bn and who is now with a Comm Sqn.  I also know of a Inf O who is the OC of a MP Pl and an Inf O who is the Coy 2IC of a MP Coy...

With regard to the Education and Training Benefit, looks like these are automatically adjusted for inflation. Current rates are:

- at least 12 years of authorized days of CAF Service (4382 days) to receive up to $83,476.48 (2020) or
- at least 6 years of authorized days of CAF service (2191 days) to receive up to $41,738.24 (2020).


----------



## TCM621 (23 Nov 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Uh... your link says they are 'Warrant officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers'. If you go to the main page, they are all grouped as 'Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers' (from Sgt up).
> 
> Did I miss something? Think senior NCO is generally understood to be Sgt and up (which is a bit confusing as there are no junior NCOs, but anyway).




Junior NCOs are Cpls and MCpls IAW QR&Os.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Uh... your link says they are 'Warrant officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers'. If you go to the main page, they are all grouped as 'Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers' (from Sgt up).



Correct;  the page is capturing all the possible Warrant and Petty Officers, and Snr NCOs for all DEUs.  



> Did I miss something? Think senior NCO is generally understood to be Sgt and up (which is a bit confusing as there are no junior NCOs, but anyway).



If most people say a Major/LCdr is a Junior Officer, does that make it accurate or correct?  



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> It is common vernacular for all but pendants . The QR&Os makes the distinctionclearer but for 99% of the CAF we lump them all together to no ill effect.



Everyone has pet peeve, and the NCO/WO one is and has been mine.    ;D



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Junior NCOs are Cpls and MCpls IAW QR&Os.



I don't think I've ever seen that part.  I do know QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 1, Art 1.02 Definitions says:

_*“non-commissioned officer” means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal; (sous-officier).*_

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 3, Art 3.08 MCpl Appointment:

_*(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.*_



Last addition;  the opening paragraph from the "The history of the Chief Warrant Officer Scroll", Dr. John MacFarlane, Assistant Heritage Officer, DHH-NDHQ, Dec 2000.

_At present Warrant Officers (or Chief Petty Officers and Petty Officer 1st class in the navy) occupy a unique category in the Canadian Forces as non-commissioned members between the rank of commissioned officers and senior non-commissioned officers. The adoption of the present structure in 1968, when the Canadian Forces were unified into a single organization, led to some debate over who should receive a Warrant._


----------



## ballz (23 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Great observation. Sadly, the CAF has ensured no one will want to do that now because the VAC Education grant is not available to anyone who stays in the CAF, in any capacity, following retirement.
> 
> I've spoken to several 40/50 year old-ish serving members who considered staying on in the reserves following retirement, but the $40k/ $80k payouts were just too tempting.
> 
> 'Et tu Brute?'



I think they've now fixed it so that if you go on Sup Res you can still get it. However, I do agree that someone should be able to go from Reg Force to PRes and use the benefit. If you follow the intent of Op TRANSITION, that would align with it nicely. I'm releasing to Sup Res and intend on using the benefit, then enrolling in PRes. I'd go direct to PRes if not for the benefit. Or how about, not having to release at all..... if you hit the threshold (6 years or 12 years), why does it matter to make you wait? What good is it doing? How does it help you "transition"? Wouldn't it be better if I could use the benefit for part-time study while serving, so that when I do release I've already got the qualification or skill? Rather than having to take a year off, or two, or three, to try and get it?

On a similar note, and related to TRANSITION and JOURNEY and how inflexible and archaic we are, what if I just wanted to take LWOP for a year, a sabbatical so-to-speak, which every other employer seems capable of, and use the Vets Education & Training benefit to get my Masters Degree at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland (which means I also get free French training)? What a great idea benefit for the CAF to be able to provide that doesn't actually cost any extra money than the benefits we currently provide. We're too busy being in our own way to be flexible like that.

On the note of recruiting, I think it'd be a pretty attractive recruiting tool too... "hey after 6 years (or 12) you can just take a sabbatical and use this sweet Education and Training benefit to improve yourself / get after something you want, which will not only help you in your career but also when you retire." 

As opposed to... "well, we've got this sweet benefit but you can only use it when it's no longer any benefit to the CAF or your CAF career aspirations."


----------



## ballz (23 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> In my opinion, in a seniority-based system, people who stay with the same organization for long periods of time are rewarded for their loyalty.



That might be an okay argument for a seniority-based system if you can fire the people that sit around and contribute nothing, or in many cases are value-subtracted simply by existing. Not exactly applicable to the CAF or public service, which has got no shortage of people who show up (well, some don't even do that) to collect their pay and build their pension while contributing nothing. I wouldn't describe that as "loyalty" no matter how many years they get away with it.


----------



## dimsum (23 Nov 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> On a similar note, and related to TRANSITION and JOURNEY and how inflexible and archaic we are, what if I just wanted to take LWOP for a year, a sabbatical so-to-speak, which every other employer seems capable of, and use the Vets Education & Training benefit to get my Masters Degree at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland (which means I also get free French training)? What a great idea benefit for the CAF to be able to provide that doesn't actually cost any extra money than the benefits we currently provide. We're too busy being in our own way to be flexible like that.



What you're suggesting, minus the Education money, is Australian Long Service Leave.  I think it's 6 months at full pay or 12 months at half pay, after your 10-year mark (I believe - don't quote me).


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2020)

(wrote way too much, editing for length) 



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> So I just thought of a potential way for them to attract recruits.



I think we need to take a lot of care when we come up with different ideas about luring the public into joining the CAF; whether it's signing bonus, paying off debt, rebranding into something "progressive-worthy" and so on. If we attract the wrong type of applicant for the wrong reasons they're going to be a burden for 3 (or 30) years.


----------



## mariomike (23 Nov 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> That might be an okay argument for a seniority-based system if you can fire the people that sit around and contribute nothing, or in many cases are value-subtracted simply by existing.



Oh, they did. At least where I worked. Saw them fire ten non-union ( ie: management ) guys in one day. Some had been there longer than me. Fired. Not laid off. No particular reason. Just had to cull the herd. Ten was a nice round number. Seniority had nothing to do with who they selected to let go. 

Funny thing was, you could never figure why some got the chop, and others survived.

Happened from time to time. But, ten in one day was pretty memorable.


----------



## FJAG (24 Nov 2020)

It just struck me as to how the CAF got me as a recruit back in 1965.

At the time 7th Toronto Regt RCA paid their serving soldiers a $10.00 bounty for each recruit they brought in the door. In those days $10.00 bought you four 24's of your favorite beer.

A serving high school stage crew buddy of mine asked me to come down and I did.

A forty-four career cost DND $10.00. I like to believe that they got more than their money's worth.

 ;D


----------



## mariomike (24 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> In those days $10.00 bought you four 24's of your favorite beer.



That's incredible!  :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (24 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> That's incredible!  :cheers:



A draft at the pub was a dime, a gallon of gas was $0.39 ($0.29 in the States) and a Canadian dollar got you around USD 1.07. Good times.

 ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> A draft at the pub was a dime, a gallon of gas was $0.39 ($0.29 in the States) and a Canadian dollar got you around USD 1.07. Good times.
> 
> ;D



...and we wore a turnip on our belt, because that was the fashion...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Nov 2020)

Just a couple of snippets:

1. I'm not sure if it was Army or Navy but I remember, late 1950s/1960 "_*A Career With a Future*_" and that sounded pretty good to a young fellow. (I joined with no intention of making it a career, I joined for "fun" (what teenaged boys thought of as fun back then) and maybe a bit of adventure and as a "gap" phase while I figured out what I wanted to do. I was not committed to a career when my CO (Maj Henderson, 2SSM Bty for those old enough) said something like "since you don't yet know what you want to do with your life, why not try officering for a bit?" 36+ years later I still hadn't quite decided ... but they said that since I couldn't make up my mind I would have to retire.)

2. Two slogans that I recall, both US, that seemed, to me, to appeal to the right sort of young people were:

a. "_*The Few, The Proud, The Marines*_" for those who want to be "elite" and better (tougher, smarter, etc) than the others, and

b. "_*Be All You Can Be*_," which always struck me as being a good challenge for young people.

I think the last one, "_*Be All You Can Be*_," is the sort of "challenge" that we might want to make to the kinds of people we want to recruit and retain.

I also think we should be happy to get lots of "one-term" (is it 3 or 5 years now) enlistments. I don't think we should try to recruit "career soldiers." I think we should try to identify and re-engage the people we want AND who want to be with us.


----------



## Furniture (24 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Don't lie to people anymore. There's a good marketing plan.
> 
> The CAF is about being able to destroy our nation's enemies. We are the 'in case of a threat to national survival, break glass' people.
> 
> ...



I think this is exactly the approach we should take, and exactly opposite to the approach we will take. 

About a year ago I was talking to the folks putting together the new Met Tech video, and they were excitedly explaining how the video would show the "cool stuff" (it's not cool) we do, and that would get people's interest. My comment at the time was, why don't we show them exactly what we do, so we get the people who actually want to do Met. Met isn't about "exciting" or "cool" jobs, it's about providing information to enable the people who do the exciting and cool stuff.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Nov 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I think this is exactly the approach we should take, and exactly opposite to the approach we will take.
> 
> About a year ago I was talking to the folks putting together the new Met Tech video, and they were excitedly explaining how the video would show the "cool stuff" (it's not cool) we do, and that would get people's interest. My comment at the time was, why don't we show them exactly what we do, so we get the people who actually want to do Met. Met isn't about "exciting" or "cool" jobs, it's about providing information to enable the people who do the exciting and cool stuff.



Well, actually, the right thing to do is to have the people who are doing the things tell other people about it.

It's called 'building a personal connection with your audience', or something like that.

This is pretty good IMHO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiDfiZsh7XY

Some other examples...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Cn8eFo7u8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtdjEiGW-pQ


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Nov 2020)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Just a couple of snippets:
> 
> 1. I'm not sure if it was Army or Navy but I remember, late 1950s/1960 "_*A Career With a Future*_" and that sounded pretty good to a young fellow.  . . .



How about "Choose a Career With a Purpose"?

1960 






Or 1959


----------



## mariomike (24 Nov 2020)

Applicants had to be between 17 - 25 in the ad.


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Applicants had to be between 17 - 25 in the ad.



we were a much bigger army then, that was also self sufficient,mostly


----------



## mariomike (24 Nov 2020)

Ad also says, "Doing a man-size job".  Times change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Applicants had to be between 17 - 25 in the ad.



Yes, there was an upper age limit. We (they) didn't want many 30+ year-olds in the junior ranks. It was (still is) a fairly physical life and most human bodies do not seem to age all that well.

You could enlist at 17 IF you had a parent's written consent.

Recruit training was about 6 months ~ my memory says 24 weeks in three eight-week phases. Basic infantry training (Group 1 LI (Leading Infantryman) was about 10 weeks. You could not be posted overseas before your 18th birthday, but if you enlisted just after your 17th birthday you could be a trained soldier before you turned 18.

My memory says that there were a few female soldiers, here and there, in the still extant Canadian Women's Army Corps (CWAC) and, maybe, the RCAMC, but I cannot remember how they were recruited or trained. I'm pretty sure the RCN and the RCAF had women in several trades.


----------



## FSTO (25 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Ad also says, "Doing a man-size job".  Times change.



Telling the truth does not change with the times.


----------



## mariomike (25 Nov 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Telling the truth does not change with the times.



I guess times change. People not so much?


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Telling the truth does not change with the times.



Didn't a Scandinavian nation (I think Sweden but can be wrong) have a set of ads basically saying "this is what you see in movies, but this is what we do in real life"?  I remembered thinking it was really refreshing as a recruitment ad.


----------



## Ostrozac (25 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> we were a much bigger army then, that was also self sufficient,mostly


That's a good observation. In 1960 the population of Canada was 18 million, compared to 38 million now. Out of that small population, without conscription, we had a Regular Force of over 100,000 but we now struggle to maintain a Regular Force of 68,000. Also note that we maintained a force of that size while largely ignoring half the potential recruiting population based on their gender.

According to my dad, there was plenty of entry-level work available in the 1960's, even to those with only a high school education. So competition with the civilian sector has been a thing for a while. So what were we doing correctly in the 60s that we are doing wrong now?


----------



## mariomike (25 Nov 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Also note that we maintained a force of that size while largely ignoring half the potential recruiting population based on their gender.



And recruiting only from the 17-25 age bracket.

Also, back in 1960, many living Canadian males were veterans of the World Wars and Korea. For their sons, joining the CAF may have seemed more 'carrying on family tradition" than it does now. I know that's how I felt in 1970.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Nov 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> That's a good observation. In 1960 the population of Canada was 18 million, compared to 38 million now. Out of that small population, without conscription, we had a Regular Force of over 100,000 but we now struggle to maintain a Regular Force of 68,000. Also note that we maintained a force of that size while largely ignoring half the potential recruiting population based on their gender.
> 
> According to my dad, there was plenty of entry-level work available in the 1960's, even to those with only a high school education. So competition with the civilian sector has been a thing for a while. So what were we doing correctly in the 60s that we are doing wrong now?



The Baby Boom produced the largest number of young people in history between about 1942 and 1964. The most people were born during the Baby Boom around 1959-62. 

If you were born in 1961, you had more competition for jobs than anyone else in recorded history when you reached 18 or so.

There's a demographic reason for great recruiting numbers too.


----------



## mariomike (25 Nov 2020)

I like the ad with Canadian soldiers "in the quaint little West German town". 

I wonder how many young guys were influenced by the film made around that time, "G.I. Blues"? How many figured if being stationed in West Germany was good enough for Elvis, it's probably good enough for me?


----------



## dapaterson (25 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I like the ad with Canadian soldiers "in the quaint little West German town".
> 
> I wonder how many young guys were influenced by the film made around that time, "G.I. Blues"? How many figured if being stationed in West Germany was good enough for Elvis, it's probably good enough for me?


Based on hairstyles, all of 5 GBMC.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Nov 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Based on hairstyles, all of 5 GBMC.



 :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Nov 2020)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . . .  I'm pretty sure the RCN and the RCAF had women in several trades.



In 1953 this was the RCAF approach to women.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Nov 2020)

A few examples from 1949, published in McLean's Magazine:


----------



## mariomike (25 Nov 2020)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> A few examples from 1949,



Same army uniform we were wearing in the early 1970s in the Pres.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Nov 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> In 1953 this was the RCAF approach to women.



I thought their approach was "Hey beautiful, I'm a pilot, what do you think of me so far?"


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Nov 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> I thought their approach was "Hey beautiful, I'm a pilot, what do you think of me so far?"



Many (_many, many_) years ago I worked with a female Med A Sgt (originally RCAF) who had been a remuster from some type of scope dope trade.  Around that time there had been a book written by a former WW2 era pilot (who remained in the RCAF after the war) and I had picked up a copy.  She noticed it and remarked that she had worked with him for a couple of years in North Bay or similar venue underground.  She shared her opinion about him and was not very flattering.  According to her, the pilot/author (and colleagues of his ilk) was one of the reasons why she remustered, as they seemed to think that the females were there for their enjoyment and there was no way to avoid the inappropriate advances when locked down in the hole.

Maybe "rebranding" is long overdue.


----------



## mariomike (25 Nov 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Around that time there had been a book written by a former WW2 era pilot (who remained in the RCAF after the war) and I had picked up a copy.



I'm guessing  it may have been a Swansea boy who attacked Berlin eleven ( eleven! ) times.


----------



## CBH99 (25 Nov 2020)

Hey guys & gals, hope you're all having a great week.  I haven't slept in 40 hours due to work, so here's my attempt at posting something coherent.  


I know I mentioned this before, but the USMC has done a pretty good job of appealling to the younger generation using platforms like Snapchat.  I actually quite enjoy their little 3 minute videos posted each week, or every few days, which are geared towards currently serving junior marines, but the videos are available for all to see.

Usually it is a fitness type video, hosted by a different young marine in each episode.  They also briefly mention quick things to be aware of in terms of policy changes (uniform, Covid, etc).

They present a pretty laid back, yet professional vibe in the videos & I can absolutely see that drawing some folks in that maybe wouldn't otherwise consider it.


I do believe the CAF is doing a pretty solid job on Instagram.  I don't have Facebook, so can't comment.




In terms of recruiting videos & such, I had mentioned before that we still need to demonstrate - even in a non direct way so the snowflakes aren't overly offended - that we are still the military, and one of our jobs is to kill bad guys.

Someone pointed out, correctly so, that perhaps today's youth don't trust that the folks we are killing ARE the bad guys.  It really is a new generation, and I don't mean that as in insult in this context.

They see Afghanistan and Iraq - most of them don't know the difference to be honest (in terms of the conflicts) - Libya, Syria, etc etc. and they don't have the faith that we are always the good guys.  They have access to information at a pretty young age now, and they are in that hyper-opinionated age range... where they can do some research, and decide pretty quickly whether they would consider our foreign policy/operations to be on the morally just side.

It doesn't help that a lot our missions now, while quite robust, are all decently low profile.  The media isn't talking about Latvia, our training mission in Iraq, our training mission in Ukraine, or our ships doing their thing.

We don't have an ethnic cleansing going on in SE Europe, and we aren't involved in any sort of counter-terror operations in Africa.  The west has also completely abandoned the Rohingya people in Burma.  Despite extremely detailed evidence of things I won't mention here, the west collectively doesn't give a s**t.



I think showcasing the humanitarian stuff that we do is really important in attracting more recruits, and helping to rebrand the military into the modern era.  Showcase that we were amongst the first in New Orleans, Haiti, and Indonesia after the tsunami.

Show the SAR stuff we do -- parachuting out of planes to save people's lives will attract those kinds of people.  Just look at every fire department's waiting list of eager recruits.

Show the high-speed stuff such as JTF2, CSOR, and the rest of SOFCOM.  Showcase that they are world class, but we can't really discuss much of what they do.

We're short of pilots?  I'll let an aircrew folk correct me on this -- but perhaps streamline the recruiting process, and show people an entry into the world of being a pilot/aircrew.  CF-18's can still be pretty darn cool with the right footage and music.

And alas, show combat footage from Afghanistan.  Be honest with the folks who may be interested in joining the combat arms.  Show the little girls who were tortured with acid on their way home from school.  Show schools the Taliban blew up because they don't believe in girls going to school, or anything being taught except their interpretation of the Quran.  Show Malala Youself, the 15yo girl who was shot in the head on the school bus because she was vocal about wanting to be educated.

And then show some combat footage of us engaging the Taliban.  

Include operations elsewhere also, such as Latvia and Ukraine.




I really do think that if we can streamline recruiting (which shouldn't be hard), streamline entry level basic courses so a person can be qualified & useful, and we revamp some of our recruiting ads & the way we reach out to young people online, we could possibly start to be viewed as a really good option.

^^ That being said, we need to streamline recruiting before any of the above.   :2c:   


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPSv79XFHOU

(I know at 9 minutes it's way too long for a recruiting video, but something along these lines could be a hit.  Also, some of the recent ads aren't too bad.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQngK6BPjQM

(This is the one I meant to post, sorry.  Same idea though.)


----------



## Furniture (25 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Hey guys & gals, hope you're all having a great week.  I haven't slept in 40 hours due to work, so here's my attempt at posting something coherent.
> 
> 
> I know I mentioned this before, but the USMC has done a pretty good job of appealling to the younger generation using platforms like Snapchat.  I actually quite enjoy their little 3 minute videos posted each week, or every few days, which are geared towards currently serving junior marines, but the videos are available for all to see.
> ...




Interesting ideas, but in my mind it re-treads the path we are already on with our recruiting material. 

When you look at all the cool stuff in the videos, most of it is done by a tiny fraction of people in the CAF, or it's presented in an unrealistic way. The troops rolling the back of the LAV are likely tired, wet, and cold, so not likely thinking about how "cool" their job is. The RCN OPS room sailors just cleaned a toilet, and are dead tired from a 1 in 2 watch rotation. The RCAF folks had a terrible sleep because the guests in the room next to theirs had loud sex all night and the hotel was completely booked solid... 

The problem connecting with young people, as I see it(as an elder millennial) is that our recruiting material is all too polished, and too "fake". The youth of today are watching twitch, Youtube, TikTok, etc.. They are accustomed to "real" people speaking like "real" people do. They see the slick production value of a recruiting ad and are automatically on guard, as the have grown up in the age of target ads every time they open an app. 

D&B posted a couple of great examples or slick HR produced videos, but I wonder if the CAF would be better served by posting actual videos of CAF members doing their jobs, and answering questions about them. Not in the heavily edited, "cut to action" way we do it now, but single take honest conversations. Show that CAF members are real humans, not movie/videogame caricatures. 

Sticking to my trade, as it's my area of expertise, look at the recruiting video we have. https://forces.ca/en/career/meteorological-technician/

Throughout the video it's not made clear that forecasting is the RQ MCpl course, so you're 5-10 years into the job before you do it. Ballistic Met is a job done by less than 30 of the 240 Met Techs, Alert is a 6 month AP only available to members posted to the Joint Met Centre in Gagetown, etc.. One of the biggest complaints I have heard form Jr members in the trade is not being able to do the "cool" stuff, and being stuck doing weather observations on a wing, or phone briefings from the JMC. We sell them on exciting, then deliver boring. Maybe we should sell the boring with the exciting, give people a more honest view of what being a member of the CAF is all about.


----------



## BDTyre (25 Nov 2020)

I agree that we need to sell the boring, or even the uncomfortable, with the exciting. Showing the Pioneer course tearing around Cultus Lake in Zodiacs with outboards will definitely catch people's interests, but maybe let them know that before they do that, they have to jump into the near-freezing waters and right their capsized boat before paddling back to shore.

Or show the weapons cleaning after the rifle range. Or the time the RQ spends standing in the weapons vault waiting for the clean weapons to be returned so you can go home.

If people aren't willing to put up with the mundane, ridiculous or uncomfortable, they'll never get to the exciting stuff. And isn't that, in part, what BMQ teaches every candidate?


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Nov 2020)

I dunno, but after watching the video of Pte. Boardman I want to be a driver now, in 16 Air Assault Brigade, and kick some a$$ in that Jackal:

https://apply.army.mod.uk/roles/royal-logistic-corps/driver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvw_Ahjtmys&feature=emb_logo


----------



## Furniture (25 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I dunno, but after watching the video of Pte. Boardman I want to be a driver now, in 16 Air Assault Brigade, and kick some a$$ in that Jackal:
> 
> https://apply.army.mod.uk/roles/royal-logistic-corps/driver
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvw_Ahjtmys&feature=emb_logo



I think it's a cool video as well, but neither of us is in the target audience. Also, I'd rather drive the quad, I miss mine since selling it when I got deported from Saanich to Onterrible.


----------



## dimsum (26 Nov 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> D&B posted a couple of great examples or slick HR produced videos, but I wonder if the CAF would be better served by posting actual videos of CAF members doing their jobs, and answering questions about them. Not in the heavily edited, "cut to action" way we do it now, but single take honest conversations. Show that CAF members are real humans, not movie/videogame caricatures.



They may be turning that corner.  On social media, there's been a push for Reddit-like "AMA" video chats with people from different trades.  The one I saw most recently was someone in 3rd Bn R22eR, but there were NCIOPs, etc before that too.


----------



## CBH99 (26 Nov 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> They may be turning that corner.  On social media, there's been a push for Reddit-like "AMA" video chats with people from different trades.  The one I saw most recently was someone in 3rd Bn R22eR, but there were NCIOPs, etc before that too.




Sorry to be a pain, but would you mind posting a link?

I'm a Reddit virgin, tried to look up CAF stuff just now, but it looks like I'm going to have to spend some time learning how to find specific things on Reddit.  Just a ton of stuff, not quite sure where to look.


----------



## shawn5o (26 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> I agree with you. I see working in the Military as a job not a career or a calling. Its a contract job and that is all that it is to me. Career is a personal economic choice of employment paths. I have worked with contracts all my life the military job is a contract based on economic and socio exchanges and factors. Its a perfect time to recruit from the young generation since the unemployment rate is so high among the young gen.
> 
> I am just a guy so what do I know.



and



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> To some, it's a Calling. To others, a profession, a career, or simply "the job".
> 
> Whatever a person calls it, loyalty to the organization is what counts. Just my opinion.
> 
> My contribution to the CAF was very small. But, I got a lot out of it. More than just a paycheck. For that, I have always been grateful and speak well of it.



and




			
				MJP said:
			
		

> Loyalty goes both ways and at the end of the day the CAF will forget you ten minutes after you leave. That isn't a criticism of the CAF writ large it is just the reality of an institution the size of ours. One of the problems we have is we still associated people wanting to change jobs/trades/get out of the military as disloyal rather than acknowledging that people change as they mature and want to do different things.
> 
> 
> Yup  :nod:  Love my job and my folks, hate the culture and "do more with less" attitude that is out there (except the people saying this always have the resources to add more people to their org or push down tasks to a lower level). I will say the pandemic has been great in getting rid of all the white noise activities that just absolutely consumed real work, hopefully it stays that way come post-pandemic time.



I'd like to comment on the a/m statements concerning career, etc

When I was with Range Control, I had access to the library and read parts of the Opie-Dopies. And if I recall correctly, there was a quotation from a U.S. Army Col (I think) and it went along the lines of that ORs in the military are career pers and for the officer corps, they are professionals - not in a career (along those lines)

MJP - I recall in '75 ('76) when the MPs were desperately short in manperson power and the MP trade was actively recruiting in the other trades. When pl Sgt.  P****** read us that tid bit of news, he looked over each and every one of us and said something like 'we don't have any disloyal soldiers here, do we?'

I do remember he actively discouraged us from applying.

Ahh, good memories


----------



## mariomike (26 Nov 2020)

Over the years I have heard, and read, the military referred to as a Calling, a Profession, a Career, and a Job.

Depends on one's point of view, I suppose. 

Bottom line, if they ever need volunteers badly enough, there is always the potential of a Draft.


----------



## FJAG (26 Nov 2020)

Profession is a flexible term.

At one point there were only three learned professions: divinity, law and medicine.

I think the more accurate view is the first one from the Oxford dictionary which reads:



> a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification.



I would think that applies equally to all members of the CAF.

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike (26 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Profession is a flexible term.
> 
> At one point there were only three learned professions: divinity, law and medicine.
> 
> ...



"The Profession of Arms."
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/duty-with-honour-2009/chapter-1-military-profession-in-canada/section-3-the-profession-of-arms-in-canada.html



> The profession of arms in Canada is composed of military members dedicated to the defence of Canada and its interests, as directed by the Government of Canada. The profession of arms is distinguished by the concept of service before self, the lawful, ordered application of military force, and the acceptance of the concept of unlimited liability. Its members possess a systematic and specialized body of military knowledge and skills acquired through education, training and experience, and they apply this expertise competently and objectively in the accomplishment of their missions. Members of the Canadian profession of arms share a set of core values and beliefs found in the military ethos that guides them in the performance of their duty and allows a special relationship of trust to be maintained with Canadian society.


----------



## HiTechComms (27 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Over the years I have heard, and read, the military referred to as a Calling, a Profession, a Career, and a Job.
> 
> Depends on one's point of view, I suppose.
> 
> Bottom line, if they ever need volunteers badly enough, there is always the potential of a Draft.



Draft is a terrible idea so is conscription. If the people are not willing to fight for their country then maybe the country is not work fighting for. 
The country I was born had conscription and had major issues with it, they got rid of it and now they have a professional army and lots of young people want to be in the military.

You also are forgetting about the fact that Canada like most of the western countries are experiencing the prolonged epidemic of Obesity. I don't think there is enough non fat people that would even qualify for the military draft.

Oh lastly most Canadian's have a dual citizenship..


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> Oh lastly most Canadian's have a dual citizenship..



"According to Statistics Canada, almost 3% or 944,700 individuals had multiple citizenships as of 2011."

https://blog.tugo.com/en/blog/new-entry-requirement-for-dual-canadian-citizens-flying-to-canada/


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Profession is a flexible term.
> 
> At one point there were only three learned professions: divinity, law and medicine.
> 
> ...



.... but you've left out the world's first and second oldest professions, of course  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_second_oldest_profession


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2020)

A few thoughts:

More than one writer has pointed out there are actually "two" armies (although this could apply to any branch) - the long service professionals who did this more out of love or avocation than a "job", and those who flock to the call of arms when the need arises (think of the surges of recruiting historically at the start of the Boer War, the Great War, WWII and even Afghanistan) but demobilize once the situation ends. Branding for one group will not necessarily translate into effective branding for the other.

The other issue is related to how soldiers integrate into the larger society. Even today, my wife, who worked in the clerical/administration trade, needs to take formal courses to get a certification for pay, human resources and other aspects of her trade that she had successfully conducted for years - in the real world, all that training and experience counts for nothing. How many other trades cannot carry over? (for that matter, I actually don't know if you can come into the Army with a skilled trade and have it recognized - I recognize this is the case for professions like doctors or lawyers, but what about a mechanic or heavy equipment operator?).

Fanshawe College in London, ON is working on some aspects of the integration issue (the President of the College is a former Lt General and commander of the Canadian Army), but this is one of how many? Being able to bring usable skills in and out of the military could help tremendously for attracting the typical short service member.


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> Draft is a terrible idea so is conscription.



If you say so. They got Elvis.  

The US had it in WW1, and from 1940 to 1973 ( WW2, Korea and Vietnam ).


----------



## HiTechComms (27 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If you say so. They got Elvis.
> 
> The US had it in WW1, and from 1940 to 1973 ( WW2, Korea and Vietnam ).



The US is not Canada. 

In addition please keep in mind that what was 70 years ago and might not be a relevant boiler plate assumption.

https://www.gallup-international.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GIA-Book-2015.pdf
We are shutting down the entire country for Covid where the predominantly the casualties are of advanced age. How will the country react to mass deaths of younger people to a war? (Lots of good questions)

Not to mention last time Conscription was enacted in Canada it almost fractured the country.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/conscription

In regards to the previous poster that posted the dual citizenship in numbers from 2011. 
Canada's population circa 2011 33.48 million
Canada's population circa 2020 37.71 million

I didn't see any actual links to stats just a number which I am a bit skeptical. 
The sources I looked at https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/dict/pop016-eng.cfm

Even if that was the case of ~1 million dual citizenship holder it doesn't account of PR of immigrants like India which doesn't allow for dual citizenship. India is now the makes up the largest immigration chunk of immigrants
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/02/03/indians-immigrating-to-canada-at-an-astonishing-rate/?sh=42120c4f2b5f

I am a bit skeptical of numbers because of the sheer amount of immigrants coming into Canada and the government increasing the quotas even more. 350k or more per year.

I am a dual citizenship holder and I am a 1st gen immigrant and that is my perspective.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (27 Nov 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Bottom line, if they ever need volunteers badly enough, there is always the potential of a Draft.



Ask anyone who has worked with conscripts from different armies while deployed; I would rather have half a section of volunteers than a platoon of conscripts.

Hard to get quality work out of people that are marking time until release, with no other motivation than going to jail.


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2020)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I would rather have half a section of volunteers than a platoon of conscripts.



Volunteers are great. 

Unfortunately, sometimes, like during World War Two, civilians had to be "volun-told" to join.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> In regards to the previous poster that posted the dual citizenship in numbers from 2011.
> Canada's population circa 2011 33.48 million
> Canada's population circa 2020 37.71 million
> 
> ...



You are going to have to do better than that to prove your assertion:



			
				HiTechComms said:
			
		

> Oh lastly most Canadian's have a dual citizenship..



Not liking the response you received does not support or prove your opinion, or negate the information you didn't like.


----------



## HiTechComms (27 Nov 2020)

Fair enough.. 

I should have phrased it differently. 

Most incoming immigrants at the rate of current immigration rate will insure that most immigrants if not all will have dual citizenship or at least PR in their own home country.

Simply adjusting for historical data of immigration will statistically make that point more realistically plausible. 

Canada is simply far out pacing any other modern country of demographics through immigration rates. We are talking about 13-15% demographic change in less then ten years, I didn't accommodate for birth rates which are abysmal in Canada any way. 
I am using extrapolation for my assertion based on immigration numbers. 

Astronaut Canadians, Birth Tourism is an issue. To simply think that 1st gen immigrants would fight for Canada is overtly optimistic. I am curious if CAF actually keeps stats on this? Statistical outliers do exist and I acknowledge that.

Canada has numerous other and bigger problems. Like: Aging population (Immigration included), Apathy, Obesity. 

One thing that this forum and the original article has made it clear is that CAF has a recruiting problem. I would like to see some raw numbers on actual CAF demographics out of intellectual curiosity. I think that most people given the choice wouldn't join and fight for Canada, immigrants or not.

There is far to much Nuance to this issue then simply having appealing recruiting drive. 
I think it might be easier to have a war or crisis ala 9/11.*shrug*


----------



## CBH99 (27 Nov 2020)

You aren't wrong about a crisis being an excellent recruiting opportunity.

During the Afghan war years, recruiting was at an all time high.  I was a unit recruiter at the time, and I had people calling me, e-mailing me, or coming into the office almost daily.


The footage, constant news coverage, video going up on Youtube & the likes, and the solid PR of 'bad guys doing bad things, and Canadians helping' were all excellent for recruiting.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> You aren't wrong about a crisis being an excellent recruiting opportunity.
> 
> During the Afghan war years, recruiting was at an all time high.  I was a unit recruiter at the time, and I had people calling me, e-mailing me, or coming into the office almost daily.
> 
> ...



And after the war was over they all left: for the Regs or civvy street. Very few stayed on in the reserves, where I am at any rate.

There's got to be a way we can achieve a balance of some kind.


----------



## CBH99 (27 Nov 2020)

I stayed in for a little while during that period, and I believe most of the members who left was because the army went back to 'garrison life'.

There was no longer a focus on specific training for a specific task, with the expectation that the member would be deployed to a theatre & conducting those tasks for real in the near future.  There was no exciting 'end goal', sort of speak.

It went back to being parade square focused, patch focused, with no need to produce a productive or lethal product at the end of a training cycle.  And that, is where most members left, and why we have a hard time retaining members now.  (In my opinion anyway)


 :2c:


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I stayed in for a little while during that period, and I believe most of the members who left was because the army went back to 'garrison life'.
> 
> There was no longer a focus on specific training for a specific task, with the expectation that the member would be deployed to a theatre & conducting those tasks for real in the near future.  There was no exciting 'end goal', sort of speak.
> 
> ...



Agreed, as discussed else where, the PRes especially, but the CAF as a whole has a crisis of purpose right now. We have no goal or end state, no white paper saying we must have a brigade group ready and able to deploy anywhere.

STARS has attempted to give some direction to the Pres, however in my opinion many see it as a if we can do it cool, not a we must accomplish this.

Without a clear purpose, we cant hone our training to be better, nor can we hope to be rightfully prepared for the next conflict.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Nov 2020)

Start with conscription and then a law that will enable reservists to be deployed as units overseas. Current unit leaders might not be up to snuff so Regulars might be needed to backfill these reserve units. We found this to be necessary prior to Desert Storm. But these were cured by adding Regulars to Guard units.


----------



## mariomike (28 Nov 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Start with conscription



We haven't had that since the war.


----------



## FJAG (28 Nov 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Start with conscription and then a law that will enable reservists to be deployed as units overseas. Current unit leaders might not be up to snuff so Regulars might be needed to backfill these reserve units. We found this to be necessary prior to Desert Storm. But these were cured by adding Regulars to Guard units.



Our existing laws already allow us to deploy reserve individuals or units or formations as entities.

Unfortunately our existing structure means that most reserve units have an establishment of approximately 25-50 percent of their regular counterparts, have had little to no collective training and have none of the heavy equipment needed for deployment.  :facepalm:

There's a serious reality gap between what our legislation contemplates and what our practical capabilities are vis a vis reserve units. 

Had a quick look at the Greek Army after a post in another thread and noted that with half of our defence budget, the Greeks have a mixed conscripted/professional army of 100,000, with a reserve capable of expanding to 750,000 with the equipment for 1 infantry, 3 mechanized and 1 armoured division plus an additional Corps headquarters with 3 infantry and one mechanized brigades. From a gunner's point of view I have to say they 23 battalions of M109s are nice.  

 :stirpot:


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Nov 2020)

thanks for the clarification.The greeks might have to fight the turks,but their army might make a good model for Canada.


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Our existing laws already allow us to deploy reserve individuals or units or formations as entities.
> 
> Unfortunately our existing structure means that most reserve units have an establishment of approximately 25-50 percent of their regular counterparts, have had little to no collective training and have none of the heavy equipment needed for deployment.  :facepalm:
> 
> ...



We don't even have enough weapons to properly put the PRes, let along heavy equipment. Most units do not have what they should above basic rifles. Recovery assets have been allowed to rust, as have light MRT capabilities (the new Mack trucks in my opinion are too big to use as anything but a heavy MRT). If we want a deployable reserve we also need them to bring their own kit.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Nov 2020)

Kit problems are not unique to the PRes.


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Nov 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Kit problems are not unique to the PRes.



Nope they are not, when any element needs to Rob Peter to pay Paul just to go on EX, we are failing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Agreed, as discussed else where, the PRes especially, but the CAF as a whole has a crisis of purpose right now. We have no goal or end state, no white paper saying we must have a brigade group ready and able to deploy anywhere.



I'm not sure the entire CAF has a crisis of purpose;  the RCAF and RCN seem to busy with FG and FE.  The RCN has multiple CPFs and at least one MCDV deployed on operations.  RCAF fleets and Sqns are doing their business.  Example:  https://www.facebook.com/CAFOperations/photos/a.395987090428612/3975735069120445/

The C Army has 500ish troops deployed to Latvia (sustained op).

Is the 'crisis of purpose' really more an Army Res issue that you see in your unit lines/CBG?

Are there no HR elements in the C Army?


----------



## MJP (28 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Agreed, as discussed else where, the PRes especially, but the CAF as a whole has a crisis of purpose right now. We have no goal or end state, no white paper saying we must have a brigade group ready and able to deploy anywhere.



That is patently wrong, SSE has clear outputs each elements has to be ready to FG. In addition we have NATO remits that we observe. The latter is is the reason 3 Div is punching back in Road to HR and then holding for a year as "NATO ready Bde" essentially.  The argument might be made that the SSE outputs are not achievable but to say we have no end state or direction would be wrong.


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm not sure the entire CAF has a crisis of purpose;  the RCAF and RCN seem to busy with FG and FE.  The RCN has multiple CPFs and at least one MCDV deployed on operations.  RCAF fleets and Sqns are doing their business.  Example:  https://www.facebook.com/CAFOperations/photos/a.395987090428612/3975735069120445/
> 
> The C Army has 500ish troops deployed to Latvia (sustained op).
> 
> ...



I can only speak for my own observations but the way I see it, we have a few missions yes. However behind those missions does the CAF have a laid out goal or desired end state laid out by policy directives? Last time I saw that was the white paper in the 90s, CFDS and SSE don't really set out what the CAF needs to do, more buzz words and a shopping list. 

Let me put it another way, If those missions disappeared over night what would our specific desired end state be?


----------



## FJAG (28 Nov 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> That is patently wrong, SSE has clear outputs each elements has to be ready to FG. In addition we have NATO remits that we observe. The latter is is the reason 3 Div is punching back in Road to HR and then holding for a year as "NATO ready Bde" essentially.  The argument might be made that the SSE outputs are not achievable but to say we have no end state or direction would be wrong.



I wouldn't say "patently wrong" at all.

While SSE has eight core missions, its requirement for concurrent operations does not call for a brigade, just two sustained and one time limited deployments of 500-1,500 troops and two sustained and one time limited deployment of 100-500 troops. Notionally if one stripped all the Air Force and Navy commitments out of that they could aggregate to a brigade sized deployment but you and I both know that wasn't the intent.

I'm not sure what 3 Div's idea of a "NATO ready brigade" is at all. There is no tasking for that within the SSE although I'll be the first to admit that the idea of 3 Div forming a "NATO ready brigade" is an excellent idea. However, I expect that when 1 CMBG reaches it's year of High Readiness then it will have two of it's battlegroups eaten up with the Latvian eFP Battlegroup rotations while the rest of the brigade is decimated and cannibalised to fill the other operational deployments. There will hardly be any "brigade" left to act as a "NATO ready brigade".

More importantly, if 3 Div does manage to cobble together enough disparate elements to actually form a brigade what is it's designated mission other than a generic "NATO" one and more importantly how will it get itself to wherever NATO needs it. What is the plan? Will the US supply shipping and air movements? Do we have civilian transport earmarked and available? Do we have liaison established with whatever division or corps we intend to deploy to?

Yes we do have NATO remits. Yes the SSE recognizes that Russia is a potential adversary and that we must be capable of "maintaining advanced conventional military capabilities that could be used in the event of a conflict with a “near-peer"". SSE is schizophrenic at best as between the hyperbole it spouts and the limited missions it assigns. However, there is no direction for a "NATO ready brigade". Far from it--all that is required is battlegroups. Even worse is that under the current readiness management system that we have, the equipment issues that we have, the personnel issues that we have, the ability to create such a brigade and to deploy it operationally is beyond our abilities. (Which is why I expect the SSE was written to only require battlegroups in the first place)

The trouble for me, and I expect for MilEME09 as well is that a "white Paper" like the SSE purports to be, should be aspirational. It should be an analysis of the country's security needs and a road map telling DND what it should build towards. SSE doesn't do that. It spouts the usual platitudes and then basically says "do the best you can with what you have - Oh and maybe there will be a few new ships and maybe, if you are really good, some new second hand fighters in the future." I exaggerate obviously. But not by much.

Canada has dug itself into a hole where for its annual investment of 20 plus billion dollars annually, it sees very few concrete defence outputs. Not only are we "failing" - we have in fact failed and are not even trying to fix the systemic problems that permeate the entire system. Rebranding (and recruiting) are but one sign.

 :cheers:


----------



## MJP (28 Nov 2020)

:highjack:





			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say "patently wrong" at all.



I think it is disingenuous to say we don't have something that lists outputs when in fact we do, the validity of SSE and the fact that it does suffer from a lack of "white paperness" doesn't eliminate the fact that outputs are defined. 



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what 3 Div's idea of a "NATO ready brigade" is at all. There is no tasking for that within the SSE although I'll be the first to admit that the idea of 3 Div forming a "NATO ready brigade" is an excellent idea. However, I expect that when 1 CMBG reaches it's year of High Readiness then it will have two of it's battlegroups eaten up with the Latvian eFP Battlegroup rotations while the rest of the brigade is decimated and cannibalised to fill the other operational deployments. There will hardly be any "brigade" left to act as a "NATO ready brigade".
> 
> More importantly, if 3 Div does manage to cobble together enough disparate elements to actually form a brigade what is it's designated mission other than a generic "NATO" one and more importantly how will it get itself to wherever NATO needs it. What is the plan? Will the US supply shipping and air movements? Do we have civilian transport earmarked and available? Do we have liaison established with whatever division or corps we intend to deploy to?
> 
> Yes we do have NATO remits. Yes the SSE recognizes that Russia is a potential adversary and that we must be capable of "maintaining advanced conventional military capabilities that could be used in the event of a conflict with a “near-peer"". SSE is schizophrenic at best as between the hyperbole it spouts and the limited missions it assigns. However, there is no direction for a "NATO ready brigade". Far from it--all that is required is battlegroups. Even worse is that under the current readiness management system that we have, the equipment issues that we have, the personnel issues that we have, the ability to create such a brigade and to deploy it operationally is beyond our abilities. (Which is why I expect the SSE was written to only require battlegroups in the first place)


I wasn't super clear but 3 Div won't be consumed because 2 Div will be the HR Div and will go on those missions, 3 Div will essentially hold in readiness for contingency. IIRC we were filling our NATO remit for a "Bde/BG Group" through the HR Div but it fell into the issue that you've described in that it was consumed FGing for named missions and would not be able to FG a Bde/BG for NATO as it was depleted.  Hence the dual road to HR divs this year with 3 Div holding until summer 22 to be "consumed"

Don't get me wrong I think it is hilarious to think we could push any more than a token force out fast as we barely have enough equipment to keep the ship going as it is. We already massively move equipment around just to ensure trg can be conducted. On top of that we have a number of deficiencies that would need to be filled in for by allies to make any BG/Bde useable.


This likely needs to be hived off as it isn't about branding anymore.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Nov 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> :highjack:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



'Easy pickings' is a brand. It was the kid that always got beaten up at recess


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I can only speak for my own observations but the way I see it, we have a few missions yes. However behind those missions does the CAF have a laid out goal or desired end state laid out by policy directives? Last time I saw that was the white paper in the 90s, CFDS and SSE don't really set out what the CAF needs to do, more buzz words and a shopping list.



I think the issue, then, might be what is in your left and right of arc's and what you 'see' inside those arcs.  The CAF always has end state;  BPT defend Canada and Canadian interests around the globe, BPT to assist Canadians here at home.  Is that a simplified version?  Certainly is.  Call it a standing "implied task", even without a White Paper, SSE...all that stuff.



> Let me put it another way, If those missions disappeared over night what would our specific desired end state be?



Continue to FG, continue to prepare for OP NEXT. Regenerate forces/units that have had a high op tempo during the operations that just "poof" went away.

Again...simplified version but...if the current op's " go away over night"...OP NEXT is just around the corner;  history has proven that.


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think the issue, then, might be what is in your left and right of arc's and what you 'see' inside those arcs.  The CAF always has end state;  BPT defend Canada and Canadian interests around the globe, BPT to assist Canadians here at home.  Is that a simplified version?  Certainly is.  Call it a standing "implied task", even without a White Paper, SSE...all that stuff.
> 
> Continue to FG, continue to prepare for OP NEXT. Regenerate forces/units that have had a high op tempo during the operations that just "poof" went away.
> 
> Again...simplified version but...if the current op's " go away over night"...OP NEXT is just around the corner;  history has proven that.



Fair point, my knowledge of SSE, CFDS and other's is based on everything publications available publicly. As FJAG put much better then I did, we lack a road map from our policy, as a result its upto NDHQ to create its own. Competing priorities makes that difficult.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2020)

You original statement, though, was the entire CAF has a crisis of purpose, including since SSE was produced (June 2017).  I just want to point out that the C Army is one part of the CAF, and the Pres world you serve in is just one part of that as well.  Down at the 'microscopic' level, things can look bleak and looking "up" can be challenging, more so looking "across".

I'm not going to comment on the C Army part of SSE etc;  I left the green DEU behind almost a decade and a half ago and am only an 'amateur observing' army topics these days.  I'm fairly stove-piped into RCAF operations and particularly those that involve the maritime battlespace, support to naval operations.   I've missed lots of family events since SSE was released, so I can attest that some of the RCAF operational units certainly have a purpose, and I've been 'away' and looking at RCN ships and crews on my sensors, and in some pretty far away places like the East China Sea.  I'll quote a few parts of SSE that I think say lots in a few words:



> *4. Global context*
> 
> Evolving balance of power
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Nov 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You original statement, though, was the entire CAF has a crisis of purpose, including since SSE was produced (June 2017).  I just want to point out that the C Army is one part of the CAF, and the Pres world you serve in is just one part of that as well.  Down at the 'microscopic' level, things can look bleak and looking "up" can be challenging, more so looking "across".
> 
> I'm not going to comment on the C Army part of SSE etc;  I left the green DEU behind almost a decade and a half ago and am only an 'amateur observing' army topics these days.  I'm fairly stove-piped into RCAF operations and particularly those that involve the maritime battlespace, support to naval operations.   I've missed lots of family events since SSE was released, so I can attest that some of the RCAF operational units certainly have a purpose, and I've been 'away' and looking at RCN ships and crews on my sensors, and in some pretty far away places like the East China Sea.  I'll quote a few parts of SSE that I think say lots in a few words:



EITS I really appreciate your responses in this thread.  We are terrible for forgetting there is more than the Army in the CAF.


----------



## GR66 (30 Nov 2020)

Possibly a reason that the Army has a crisis of purpose that doesn't seem evident in the RCN or RCAF is that Canada and the US are in effect an island state that no land army has any hope of invading.  The Navy and Air Force have a obvious and direct role in keeping any military threats at a distance from the island (and protecting our movements to and from the island) while our Army deployments generally serve to bolster our broader political goals and alliances.  While they may be highly desirable and beneficial to Canada, as noted elsewhere up-thread they could technically be considered "optional".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2020)

For the Reserves, the on again, off again about making it a Civil Defense force is utter poison. People join the Reserves to do stuff different than their day job or average life. Marketing, equipment and purpose all play a much more significant role in recruiting and retention. Particularly as there is no contract holding them into place.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Nov 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> For the Reserves, the on again, off again about making it a Civil Defense force is utter poison. People join the Reserves to do stuff different than their day job or average life. Marketing, equipment and purpose all play a much more significant role in recruiting and retention. Particularly as there is no contract holding them into place.



In the 50s we restructured the Reserves into a national survival force to conduct post-nuclear strike recovery operations. The military side, getting to train on war fighting equipment, was discarded in favour of what was derisively referred to as "snakes and ladders". Military training is transferable to other tasks, but the opposite is not true.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> For the Reserves, the on again, off again about making it a Civil Defense force is utter poison. People join the Reserves to do stuff different than their day job or average life. Marketing, equipment and purpose all play a much more significant role in recruiting and retention. Particularly as there is no contract holding them into place.



The Gunners have that 'Op Tasking' these days. 

AFAIK they don't spend all their time on it, and have enough training space in the calendar to get on with their real task: firing salutes for the opening of parliament


----------



## CBH99 (30 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I stayed in for a little while during that period, and I believe most of the members who left was because the army went back to 'garrison life'.
> 
> There was no longer a focus on specific training for a specific task, with the expectation that the member would be deployed to a theatre & conducting those tasks for real in the near future.  There was no exciting 'end goal', sort of speak.
> 
> ...




I posted this a few days ago, and it kicked off a bit of a discussion about whether the CAF as a whole has a 'crisis of purpose' and some commentary about SSE.

My only intent in making this original statement was my own experience in the Army.


The RCAF and RCN seem pretty busy, and if I often try to steer younger folks into joining one of those elements rather than the Army.  Not that my experience in the Army was bad - but having grown up a lot, and seen what the other elements do & a small bit of exposure to their work environments, I do try to steer younger folks to either the RCN or RCAF.



What I was alluding to in my statement was that when Afghanistan ended, a lot of good members left the military.  And they took a ton of extremely useful and recent combat experience with them.

The reason a vast majority of them left is because it was extremely clear that the Army was going back to 'garrison life'.  Aka "Army Dumb".  

And while that may be okay for younger folks when they first get in, to get some valuable courses & experience -- during peacetime -- telling an Army full of recent combat vets that they're going to spend a lot of time marching in circles on a parade square & taking courses on everything they've been doing for real, was a huge spark of folks leaving.  Leaving en-masse.  


Recruiting for the Army was amazing during the Afghan War years.  The CAF was in the news almost daily, and we were 'protecting civilians and killing bad guys' - which is something that attracted people.  (We're talking about branding - there is an element of that which does help recruiting.)

Not only was recruiting great, but I found life in the Army was a LOT better.  We didn't spend a lot of time on stupid useless things, or learning the same skills we were already qualified.  There wasn't a ton of random 'make work' projects to keep the troops from being bored.

There was a war, and there was a good chance you were going to fight in it.  And soon.

There was a sense of purpose in that regards.  Training, real world applicable skills, lessons learned, listening to experience from members who had just returned, etc etc.  There was a real motivation to be smarter, faster, stronger, improve marksmanship, and really familiarize yourself with kit & skills you may not usually focus on -- because sooner vs later, you were going to be hunting Taliban.  And the Taliban were going to be hunting you.


That is the 'sense of purpose' I think has been lost in the Army.  There is no real focus on fighting and excelling at a specific conflict, because there isn't any urgency, nor does the Army know what the next conflict will look like.

Folks in the Army know Russia isn't about to invade us via the Arctic, nor are they going to invade Europe.  Exercise Maple Resolve - Latvia edition, is just that.  And members know it.

Same with the Iraq training mission.  Or Ukraine training mission.  Yes, we do it -- but there isn't that 'excitement' or 'urgent focus' the way there was in Afghanistan.

A lot of Army folks that  I chat with decently often are also well aware that any real contribution we make to operations in the SCS will be the RCN & RCAF.  It's really hard to find a C7 accurately while doing a flutter kick.



Sorry to pop this in here today.  I was catching up on the thread and noticed some commentary after my quote, so I just wanted to clarify what I meant.


----------



## FJAG (30 Nov 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> ...
> That is the 'sense of purpose' I think has been lost in the Army.  There is no real focus on fighting and excelling at a specific conflict, because there isn't any urgency, nor does the Army know what the next conflict will look like.
> 
> Folks in the Army know Russia isn't about to invade us via the Arctic, nor are they going to invade Europe.  Exercise Maple Resolve - Latvia edition, is just that.  And members know it.
> ...



While others' opinions may differ on this point, for much of the late 60s, 70s and 80s, there was no real expectations that the Soviets were actually ever going to come thundering through the Fulda Gap. We did have a brigade in Germany and much of our focus in the Army during those years was to train for war in Germany (or Norway as part of Ace Mobile) against a Soviet threat. That focus gave us purpose and saw us through during very difficult financial constraints. Many of our people rotated through 4 CMBG and thus kept up a heightened interest and expertise.

I've argued elsewhere that a mechanized brigade's worth of prepositioned equipment in Poland, for example, that different units in Canada, both regular and reserve, could rotate through during the year would do much to firstly build a credible deterrent force there. Secondly, it would provide a tangible purpose for our soldiers.

I don't consider the eFP Latvia mission a form of Maple Resolve--it's entirely too small for that. But a prepositioned brigade could very well become an interesting way of conducting Maple Resolve in the future and providing all units and formations in Canada an opportunity to train on a fully configured organization in an interesting environment.

“Opportunity is everywhere. The key is to develop the vision to see it.” Anonymous

:cheers:


----------



## rmc_wannabe (1 Dec 2020)

Any defense policy that comes before a well thought out and well defined Foreign/Domestic Response policy is a moot point. It sets out the belief that our forces will be able to do everything, in case of whatever scenario may or may not come to fruition. This creates the fallacy of "Just In Time" funding and procurement, alongside training and recruitment. This is a godsend for the budget folks, but complete nonsense for anyone with any foreign policy or military experience.

I find SSE to be just that. It is a 20 year commitment to do everything and nothing at the same time: Promises to buy new equipment, but no clear direction on how and where it will be employed. Parliament is pushing for a harder stance on China, yet our government is still talking trade deals. We put our token efforts into NATO, but have no plans to increase spending to meet our 2 percent GDP mandate. Our UN effort in Africa was notable, but short lived to make a real dent on the Security Council front. Domestic response efforts that are increasing in complexity and frequency, yet our equipping and bolstering of our reserve forces is wanting. 

I feel the next party to form government needs to set out a better map of where we want to be in the world, how to get there, and fund accordingly. That will be more of a solution to branding that any PR campaign.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Dec 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You original statement, though, was the entire CAF has a crisis of purpose, including since SSE was produced (June 2017).  I just want to point out that the C Army is one part of the CAF, and the Pres world you serve in is just one part of that as well.  Down at the 'microscopic' level, things can look bleak and looking "up" can be challenging, more so looking "across".
> 
> I'm not going to comment on the C Army part of SSE etc;  I left the green DEU behind almost a decade and a half ago and am only an 'amateur observing' army topics these days.  I'm fairly stove-piped into RCAF operations and particularly those that involve the maritime battlespace, support to naval operations.   I've missed lots of family events since SSE was released, so I can attest that some of the RCAF operational units certainly have a purpose, and I've been 'away' and looking at RCN ships and crews on my sensors, and in some pretty far away places like the East China Sea.  I'll quote a few parts of SSE that I think say lots in a few words:



Sorry for taking so long to reply, SSE takes awhile to reread, and having a child under 1 takes up a lot of time. While my experience is entirely army based, and I will never claim to be an expert in the other fields. SSE has some substance, including the number of missions we want to be able to support, however it does not necessarily lay the ground very well for how that can be achieved or the why we need said missions. That said each arm is managing their own resources well, though the Army's new plan for two brigades being at high readiness at the same time when we only have three may burn people out.


----------



## OblivionKnight (1 Dec 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> OblivionKnight, thank you for providing this snapshot of things going non-optimally...ie. Disappointingly.  Sorry to hear the CAF wasn’t able to attract you, but glad things are working for your career!
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Thank you! Things have been working out well on the civilian side. Unfortunately the application process left me very disenchanted. I remember driving to the nearest recruiting centre (about an hour away from where I lived) multiple times for yearly medicals, interviews, document submission, and sometimes just to be told that the occupation was now closed and therefore my file would be closed, and to re-apply "next year". There was no effort made to process my application for another occupation. The background checks would not have been an issue, as I was born here and never travelled overseas. Hopefully things change in this regard!


----------



## FJAG (1 Dec 2020)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Any defense policy that comes before a well thought out and well defined Foreign/Domestic Response policy is a moot point. It sets out the belief that our forces will be able to do everything, in case of whatever scenario may or may not come to fruition. This creates the fallacy of "Just In Time" funding and procurement, alongside training and recruitment. This is a godsend for the budget folks, but complete nonsense for anyone with any foreign policy or military experience.



Bingo. I tend to believe that in the absence of a well thought out and well defined foreign/domestic policy from the government, the military needs to do it's own hard analysis and lean in the direction of preparing for the most possible and most dangerous threats. To try to create an all singing and dancing force to be able to handle the mid level threats without addressing the high level ones is a fool's game. This is why I hate the term "agile".



			
				rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I find SSE to be just that. It is a 20 year commitment to do everything and nothing at the same time: Promises to buy new equipment, but no clear direction on how and where it will be employed. Parliament is pushing for a harder stance on China, yet our government is still talking trade deals. We put our token efforts into NATO, but have no plans to increase spending to meet our 2 percent GDP mandate. Our UN effort in Africa was notable, but short lived to make a real dent on the Security Council front. Domestic response efforts that are increasing in complexity and frequency, yet our equipping and bolstering of our reserve forces is wanting.



Totally agree on SSE. Not a fan of the 2% of GDP thing until DND/CAF get's it's own s**t together and stops wasting billions on administrative overhead. Personal opinion: not one more nickle for full-time pay. Equipment. maintenance and reserves; yes. Full-time pay; no.

I actually see nothing wrong with staying on cordial terms with China and continuing trade relations. BUT. If this pandemic has shown us anything it's that we need to have a national economic strategy to ensure that all vital strategic supplies and industries are domestic. Similarly we should formally exclude imports that can harm our security (such as telecommunications) and ensure we have stockpiles of vital raw materials that cannot be produced domestically.



			
				rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I feel the next party to form government needs to set out a better map of where we want to be in the world, how to get there, and fund accordingly. That will be more of a solution to branding that any PR campaign.



I don't hold any hope out for that. I expect whatever party is in power next will continue to focus on domestic issues. I've said it elsewhere but proper reform of the military (including an enlightened foreign/security policy) will require an extraordinary minister to herd the bureaucracy into line. I don't see anyone like that on the horizon.

Incidentally, I'm a firm believer in Gen Simonds position back in the 50s/60s that doing domestic operations is easy for a military trained and organized for proper warfighting. Whether it's lifting sandbags, or medical support during pandemics, or firefighting in the forests, you can adapt to that very quickly if the basics are in place. If on the other hand your force is a shambles, domestic ops become a bit problematic while warfighting becomes an impossibility.

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Dec 2020)

Please name one pillar of our foreign policy that would trigger a military response from Canada that is not NATO or NORAD. 

"Do as little as possible" and "cut and run" seems to be the defining characteristics but I would love to be wrong.  And do you want to put your life on the line for that and more particularly should we let our politicians put the lives of others at risk knowing that the effort will be minimal and they will in fact, cut and run. (edit- not the military- the military will fight if allowed).


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Dec 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Please name one pillar of our foreign policy that would trigger a military response from Canada that is not NATO or NORAD.
> 
> "Do as little as possible" and "cut and run" seems to be the defining characteristics but I would love to be wrong.  And do you want to put your life on the line for that and more particularly should we let our politicians put the lives of others at risk knowing that the effort will be minimal and they will in fact, cut and run. (edit- not the military- the military will fight if allowed).



Top that off with potential having to sue the government to get your VAC benefits.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Top that off with potential having to sue the government to get your VAC benefits.



This is the crux to me. 

I simply don't advocate for people to join anymore.  And when I am asked by a friend or theirs kid who is looking into it I tell in no uncertain terms not to join.  If they must join, stay in school and become and officer.  And preferably in the reserves.  I tell everyone to become an RCAF Food Services officer.


----------



## BenMarkorov (29 Dec 2020)

I concurr


----------



## mariomike (29 Dec 2020)

BenMarkorov said:


> I concur


Never regretted my time in "the profession of arms". On the contrary, I enjoyed it. Maybe because I was young. 

Never considered it for a full-time job, although my sister did and stayed in for the whole ride. Never heard her, or her husband, say a bad word about it. Maybe in private, to each other, I don't know. But, never in front of me, or our parents.


----------



## dangerboy (30 Dec 2020)

mariomike said:


> Never regretted my time in "the profession of arms". On the contrary, I enjoyed it. Maybe because I was young.
> 
> Never considered it for a full-time job, although my sister did and stayed in for the whole ride. Never heard her, or her husband, say a bad word about it. Maybe in private, to each other, I don't know. But, never in front of me, or our parents.


Just out of curiosity when did they serve, was it within the last say 10 years? Things within current society and the CAF are different now than what they used to be and we have to take that into account.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2020)

dangerboy said:


> Just out of curiosity when did they serve, was it within the last say 10 years?


She retired a little over ten years ago. She did a Reg to Res CT within the Air Force (  I think so she could stay at the same base ) towards the end of her career.
He retired before her to take a really good trade-related job in the civilian world.

She doesn't strike me as a hard-core "profession of arms" type, but, for the most part, she seemed satisfied with her work and enjoyed the people she worked with. At least, that's the impression my mother and I have.

One thing for sure, she loves Cold Lake, Alberta and says she will never leave.


dangerboy said:


> Things within current society and the CAF are different now than what they used to be and we have to take that into account.



Personally, I enjoyed my time in the PRes for perhaps the most selfish reason of all. Because we were young.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2021)

Bill tells it like it is.... or should be:

Life Lessons from Brigadier General William Fletcher

Over the span of more than 30 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, Brigadier General William Fletcher has learned a lot about what it means to lead and how to excel in a career with the military. The Commander of 3rd Canadian Division and Joint Task Force West shares a few of those lessons to empower soldiers to be the best they can be.

*On leadership:*
“I’m a lot of things, but one of my strengths as a leader is to actually listen. It doesn’t mean I always have to agree, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s going to influence my decision, but I am going to listen. It’s a recognition that I don’t have all the answers. Yes, I’ve been around a long time and I have opinions and experience, but I don’t have the answers. They’re not the same thing. I think sometimes people conflate experience with knowing everything, and that’s really dangerous. I recognize that I don’t know everything and I’m open to advice and I’ll try to make the best decision that I can.”






                       Caption

*On the implications of command:*
“As a young officer, sometimes you lose sight that your decisions have some pretty significant consequences in terms of the lives of your people. That was brought into stark reality in operations for me a few times. Some decisions I made led to a soldier not coming home. That’s huge. That experience really drives my concept of what resilience is and what it means to take care of our soldiers.”

*On staying humble:*
“If you see me, I don’t wear my rank 24/7. I’m Bill Fletcher, regular guy. Please say hi.”
Four pieces of advice for soldiers:​*Trust your gut.*
“My initial reaction has been right more often than it’s been wrong. It’s always when I’ve ignored a strong feeling that I’ve ended up making a stupid decision or found myself in a bad situation. I believe that most of our folks have a tremendous moral compass and they know what right is and they know what wrong is.”

*Don’t stress out about your career.*
“I have never really asked for a job in my life. The two times I did, I ended up getting the exact opposite so I just stopped asking. I always got what I needed. It just worked. It worked because whatever job I was in, whether it was comfortable or uncomfortable, whether it was something I wanted or something I never saw coming, I just tried to do my best.”

*Have fun.*
“We often forget the benefits that come with being in the Army, and I’m not talking about pensions or medical or dental. I’m talking about camaraderie, and the fact that the stuff that we do is pretty cool. Some folks would give their eye teeth just to be able to be a soldier for a day and just to experience what we experience on a daily basis. You lose sight of that after a bunch of years going through the grind. Every once in a while, it’s good to get re-glued, take stock and look at the context of what’s going on. Remember what’s important in life and have fun with what you’re doing.”

*Find balance.*
“It’s easy to work a half day, and by that I mean 6 a.m. to 6 at night or later. There will always be stuff that needs to be doing.
“When I was offered command of 1st Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, the one star asked: ‘If this were to happen would you take it?’ I instantly responded yes. He suggested that I ask my wife first, but I said I don’t need to. He responded: ‘Look, I’m 52 years old, divorced, with a new wife and a young baby. I’m starting life again. None of it was worth it. At the end of the day, the big green machine is going to keep ticking along and you’re going to have your family, so hopefully your relationship with them is still strong. So go ask your wife what she thinks.’

“That stuck with me. My family are the ones that will be there long after this, and they’ve sacrificed just as much as anyone else for Canada. Balance is absolutely critical. Don’t lose sight of your loved ones.”










						Life Lessons from Brigadier General William Fletcher
					

Over the span of more than 30 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, Brigadier General William Fletcher has learned a lot about what it means to lead and how to excel in a career with the military.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## shawn5o (16 Mar 2021)

From Eaglelord17

The CAF is its own worst enemy when it comes to recruiting.


The targeted shift from rural applicants (i.e. in general not the minorities they are trying to attract) to urban isn't going particularly well. They have closed recruitment centers in the more isolated areas, but those areas tended historically to attract more applicants than the urban centers. The urban centers haven't made up for the losses either. For example, where I am if someone wants to join the Regs they have to apply online or drive at least 3 hours to the nearest recruitment office to be told to apply online. Then get periodically called to drive the 3 hours to do the testing needed to join. Not exactly a convent process and would put a lot of people off joining.




> I lived about 2 hrs away from the recruiting centre in Ottawa. The centre sent me a bus pass to enroll but the bus driver was pissed because the centre didn't pay up the correct amount, however he accepted it.



I can only guess the CF has gone cheap

----------

From HiTechComms


The problem is not the CAF its our society and our governments messaging.

As 1st gen immigrant myself I find it very confusing to be told that you are something else first and Canadian 2nd(even people born here tend to identify as a hyphen Canadian) and in that case why would I risk life and limb to die with that message in mind. Lastly when the majority of the people in this country have dual citizenship and the option of leaving if the poo hits the fan rather then dying for Canada or worse for a Politicians virtue signaling.

I highly recommend that everyone googles the following [poll "would you fight for your country"] I think Canada is at like 30%. At some point if their no unifying message that we are Canadians first I fear that there will be no Canada because everyone will voluntarily separate into their own ethnic or regionalist tribes. (I know that this is not a popular opinion)




> I recall back in late 70s, we were given a survey asking that same question (or very similar) and I was surprised as quite a number of soldiers said they wouldn't.  This was at 2VP Winnipeg


----------



## shawn5o (16 Mar 2021)

Speaking of recruiting drives in the 70s

We were at Battle School in Wainwright and the crse PL Comd asked us if recruiting was misleading recruits and if anything was off when a recruit was accepted. (BTW, I applied in March and was sent to Cornwallis April 23 - that was fast)

One young lad stated that he had applied to become a tail gunner on a bomber.  The staff went wide eyed and had him repeat his statement.

He was told by the recruiting centre that "there were no openings for that trade but if he went infantry, he would get weapons training and be eligible for remuster to whatever trade he wanted".

Good old days, eh


----------



## Weinie (16 Mar 2021)

shawn5o said:


> Speaking of recruiting drives in the 70s
> 
> We were at Battle School in Wainwright and the crse PL Comd asked us if recruiting was misleading recruits and if anything was off when a recruit was accepted. (BTW, I applied in March and was sent to Cornwallis April 23 - that was fast)
> 
> ...


And I bet the recruiting staff laughed about that story for years.


----------



## mariomike (16 Mar 2021)

shawn5o said:


> I highly recommend that everyone googles the following [poll "would you fight for your country"] I think Canada is at like 30%.


That's why they have the draft / conscription.


----------



## dangerboy (16 Mar 2021)

mariomike said:


> That's why they have the draft / conscription.


Who is "they"?  Historically draft/conscription has not worked very well in Canada.


----------



## mariomike (16 Mar 2021)

dangerboy said:


> Who is "they"?


The government. Not going to argue if it is a good idea or not. That subject has already been beaten to death on here. Just have to wait till the next World War to find out if "they" will bring it back again.


----------



## brihard (16 Mar 2021)

mariomike said:


> The government. Not going to argue if it is a good idea or not. That subject has already been beaten to death on here. Just have to wait till the next World War to find out if "they" will bring it back again.


If there's a next world war that gets that desperate, it will probably be over far too quick for a levee en masse to be of any use.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Mar 2021)

brihard said:


> If there's a next world war that gets that desperate, it will probably be over far too quick for a levee en masse to be of any use.



I recall that the Norwegians said they could mobilize about 1 million troops in four days, out of a total population of just over 4 million. As a result, their 'Home Guard' units, units raised locally to defend key points like bridges, were provided with about 4 days of Csups to hold in place. 

The primary role of the 'Levee en Masse'/ conscription is to be able to respond quickly. Having said that, like any such mobilization program, it needs to be properly maintained and supported to be of any use, which can be really expensive.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I recall that the Norwegians said they could mobilize about 1 million troops in four days, out of a total population of just over 4 million. As a result, their 'Home Guard' units, units raised locally to defend key points like bridges, were provided with about 4 days of Csups to hold in place.
> 
> The primary role of the 'Levee en Masse'/ conscription is to be able to respond quickly. Having said that, like any such mobilization program, it needs to be properly maintained and supported to be of any use, which can be really expensive.


In a way you could do something like that here but a focus on domestic tasks, with expeditionary as a secondary role. Example Blairmore used to have a RCEME platoon and a recovery platoon a long long time ago. Given its location, and if you equipped it correctly, a recovery platoon in the mountain passes to respond quickly to crashes involving big rigs would be interesting. Would require a level of assumed risk you don't see these days though.


----------



## mariomike (17 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Having said that, like any such mobilization program, it needs to be properly maintained and supported to be of any use, which can be really expensive.


Really expensive. And unpopular, with some.

The US government has had a draft in six conflicts. I'm old enough to remember their last one. Vietnam-era "draft dodgers" coming to Canada. And, seeing young men on TV burn their draft cards in Washington while chanting "Hell no - we won't go!". As well as reading of some purposely failing the medical, and recruiting process to avoid the draft.

Or taking an "Easy out". ie: A Bad Conduct Discharge ( BCD ).

There were also what were described as "handcuff volunteers". Men who volunteered to serve in other branches, rather than wait to get drafted into the infantry. eg: Gene Autry knew he would soon be drafted during the war. He said, "I didn't want to be drafted into the infantry."

So, he volunteered for the Air Corps.

In spite of the expense and unpopularity, the US draft ran non-stop from 1940 to 1973. They even got Elvis in the late 1950's.

Of course, it's always preferable for military vacancies to be filled by volunteers.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Mar 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> In a way you could do something like that here but a focus on domestic tasks, with expeditionary as a secondary role. Example Blairmore used to have a RCEME platoon and a recovery platoon a long long time ago. Given its location, and if you equipped it correctly, a recovery platoon in the mountain passes to respond quickly to crashes involving big rigs would be interesting. Would require a level of assumed risk you don't see these days though.



I seem to remember that the Home Guard units in Denmark and Norway were about a large platoon in size and were commanded by a Reg F Pl HQ. They trained regularly, including the guy who was OIC Nuclear Demolition Charges for the big bridges who also happened to be a truck driver. 

I think they were grouped in companies and battalions regionally, anchored on the key points they were responsible for. They kept their personal weapons and ammo at home. Being fully 'Woke' to the cause of national survival, these were gender balanced fighting units!

Again, a big resource drain - but it makes sense if you're expecting 5 x Soviet Airborne Divisions to drop in for lunch unannounced. 

And I know Blairmore really well, my in-laws being from there. The locals are so heavily armed I don't think it would be possible for the CAF to outgun them


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Mar 2021)

Canada has never really had an effective capability to mobilize quickly.  It takes time to work up formations that can be risked in battle.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (17 Mar 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Canada has never really had an effective capability to mobilize quickly. It takes time to work up formations that can be risked in battle.




Expeditionally, we have punched above our weight time and time again when we work in a coalition and have the lead time to prepare an expeditionary force (from the Boer War to fighting ISIS).

Domestically, we have failed miserably in protecting ourselves from incursions (Be it Fenians, drug smugglers, or Russian Tu-95s ). This goes to a belief, colonial in nature, that someone else will take care of it. Canadian society has no appetite to be a military deterrent because is takes money and effort better put towards bettering our comfortable lifestyle. We build on additions to the house without raising our insurance coverage.

Canada has become the modern day equivalent of 1938 Poland; our domestic defense capability is undermanned, underequipped, and reliant on Treaty Partners coming to save us. We saw how well that worked out in the past...


----------



## kratz (17 Mar 2021)

> We saw how well that worked out in the past...



We are seeing how that has not worked for us currently with COVID-19 (production, health protection ect...)


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Mar 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Expeditionally, we have punched above our weight time and time again when we work in a coalition and have the lead time to prepare an expeditionary force (from the Boer War to fighting ISIS).
> 
> Domestically, we have failed miserably in protecting ourselves from incursions (Be it Fenians, drug smugglers, or Russian Tu-95s ). This goes to a belief, colonial in nature, that someone else will take care of it. Canadian society has no appetite to be a military deterrent because is takes money and effort better put towards bettering our comfortable lifestyle. We build on additions to the house without raising our insurance coverage.
> _*
> Canada has become the modern day equivalent of 1938 Poland;*_ our domestic defense capability is undermanned, underequipped, and reliant on Treaty Partners coming to save us. We saw how well that worked out in the past...


 
Except we're surrounded by either friendly countries or gigantic Oceans.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Except we're surrounded by either friendly countries or gigantic Oceans.


Oceans aren't the great barriers they once were. Not when a hyper sonic cruise missile can be fired from archangel and strike parliament Hill if they wanted to.


----------



## Kilted (18 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I seem to remember that the Home Guard units in Denmark and Norway were about a large platoon in size and were commanded by a Reg F Pl HQ. They trained regularly, including the guy who was OIC Nuclear Demolition Charges for the big bridges who also happened to be a truck driver.
> 
> I think they were grouped in companies and battalions regionally, anchored on the key points they were responsible for. They kept their personal weapons and ammo at home. Being fully 'Woke' to the cause of national survival, these were gender balanced fighting units!
> 
> ...


I remember working with a Dane that explained that he was a Sgt in the regular army and an officer in the home guard. Apparently you can independently be a member of both at the same time.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Mar 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> In a way you could do something like that here but a focus on domestic tasks, with expeditionary as a secondary role. Example Blairmore used to have a RCEME platoon and a recovery platoon a long long time ago. Given its location, and if you equipped it correctly, a recovery platoon in the mountain passes to respond quickly to crashes involving big rigs would be interesting. Would require a level of assumed risk you don't see these days though.


The way the reserves are currently structured, and where units are located, that's almost exactly what we have already.

Extra manpower & some big vehicles to assist in domestic operations, expeditionary being a secondary role (albeit trained for as in primary role)


----------

