Author Topic: Retention vs Recruiting  (Read 7356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 489,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,920
    • The job.
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2018, 18:31:58 »
Like I said, "Personal enjoyment may vary."

My sister, and her husband, both stayed in for the whole ride. But, they were in their teens when they joined, and everyone is different.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2018, 18:41:08 by mariomike »

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 108,404
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,990
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2018, 19:25:06 »
Some interesting comments in this thread but I think we are conflating a number of different issues that aren't necessarily interrelated.

The first problem I see with the retention issue is we haven't structured our force properly to necessarily do what we want or need it to do.  What do I mean when I say this?

Well a big issue is do we want an Armed Forces that is optimized for mobilization or expeditionary operations?  As is Canadian tradition, we try and do it all and end up doing a mediocre job institutionally as a result.

The Army talks a big game about expeditionary operations but is poorly optimized for it.  Our regular units are all undermanned in that they aren't kept at actual fighting strength and they don't have the required numbers of equipment and vehicles to even properly equip the manpower they do have. 

We then have a very large Reserve Force with 100+ units spread all across the country that all have associated infrastructure, personnel and resources costs associated with them that are even more poorly equipped than the Regular Force.  The immediate operational value of the Reserves for expeditionary operations is pretty much zero as they have no actual equipment and can only provide individual augmentation in ones and twos for any operation we do conduct.  Ditto the Navy with their 20+ stone frigates in bastions of Maritime Activity like Regina, Saskatchewan. 

All this to say, we spend enormous amounts of money and resources simply trying to administer and manage this gigantic organization of people with very little output to show for it at the end of the day.  We also have stupid policies like "25% of personnel serving on named operations must be Reservists" when we have thousands of Regular Force members sitting around in Garrisons twiddling their thumbs for years at a time in some cases. 

We can either be a mobilization force or an expeditionary force, we don't have the money or need to be both.  The CAF needs to pick one and get rid of the rest. 

Either way, I think we could cut the Army by a significant margin (The Regular Navy and Air Force should remain as is) and see no loss in actual capability output.


« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 06:56:04 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 478,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,331
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2018, 06:39:15 »
Some interesting comments in this thread but ...

The Army talks a big game about expeditionary operations but is poorly optimized for it.  Our regular units are all undermanned in that they aren't kept at actual fighting strength and they don't have the required numbers of equipment and vehicles to even properly equip the manpower they do have. 
...


Which means that they can never be properly or, even, adequately trained for combat operations, which means that our whole force generation / force employment model is a sad, silly farce that just creates jobs (welfare, in a way) for admirals and generals, because we don't 'generate' useful forces.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 133,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,508
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2018, 07:57:49 »
The immediate operational value of the Reserves for expeditionary operations is pretty much zero as they have no actual equipment and can only provide individual augmentation in ones and twos for any operation we do conduct.  Ditto the Navy with their 20+ stone frigates in bastions of Maritime Activity like Regina, Saskatchewan. 

I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by HB in his last post.

I just wish to particularize a few naval point, if I may.

First, the naval reserves actually have a lot of the equipment for "expeditionary" if in that you include support of civilian authorities. Witness the Winnipeg floods around the turn of the millennium. About 75% of the deployed boat assets came from the NAVRES, and nearly 45% of personnel to operate also.

But it remains true that the naval reserves, just like the militia, remains organized on model based in World War era's view of augmentation and with a primary purpose of "being visible" in their community.

Well, they are not anymore. Who in Montreal, Halifax, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary or Toronto even knows anything about the activities of Naval reserve Divisions located there?

The year I left the reserves to go on SRR, I had put up a paper on what I felt was the necessary re-organization of NAVRES to fulfill the upcoming role of manning the MCDV's. These were much more sophisticated vessels than the old Gate Vessels, and thus, more advanced training, individual and team, would be required, and extensive use of simulators would be required. For me, any time a reservist spent doing "admin" nights stuff was a waste of training time, as even the higher ranks needed to keep their training up.

So I proposed disposing of all the NAVRES units and to create five Regional Reserve Training Centers (Halifax for the Atlantic provinces, Esquimalt in the West, and then Quebec City for Quebec (already half built as NAVRES HQ and CFFS Qc, then Hamilton for Ontario (kick the Army out of the base at water's edge - it used to belong to the Navy before unification) and then either the Peg or Calgary for the prairies) These training centre would concentrate the regular forces resources currently assigned to support reserve units and they would be the ones doing all of the support administration for reservists for their region and providing the instructors/standards. The reservists would do their basic at St- Jean, like everybody else, and after passing basic, would be contacted by their Training Centre for further administration of their career. All reservist from the given region would basically receive, once a year, a schedule telling him or her which week-end (one every month) to report to the training centre and what training he/she would do on that week-end, and then, when he/she would be expected to report for two weeks full training. Any other assignment would also be coordinated by those centre.

It's basically the US system. This way, you pool and make the Reg force support more efficient, the Training centres would concentrate and use efficiently the expensive training simulators required, and make it possible to dispose of most NAVRES units.

I don't know what happened to this paper (other than the C.O. sent it up to Quebec with a less than enthusiastic cover letter - then I retired before learning of the results, though it's obvious by now it wasn't implemented.  ;D 

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,493
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2018, 09:28:22 »
I think Singapore has that, where there's a parallel "tech expert" rank structure to the military ranks.  Seems to be working for them. 

I've never heard of the Aussies having separate streams though when I was working with them, but that may have changed recently.

Also worth a mention; the RAF "Professional Aircrew" stream.  I'd sign up on something like that to stay flying, but staying flying your whole career = lower pension amount on retirement.  Career aircrew could form the core of a fleet or Sqn's corporate knowledge of air ops, but we insist on doing things the opposite, always in detriment to the operational sqn's.
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,493
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2018, 09:33:02 »
Next, we front-end load too much training.  After basic training, they should only get enough environmental training to make them useful in a Navy, Army or Air Force unit.  This need not and in fact, should not be trade training. When they get to their first units, they should be given the opportunity to help and observe a variety of different areas (everybody can use a few extra hands to help with the mundane tasks).  After awhile, both the member and the CAF will have a better idea of the individuals aptitudes and desires.  Then, they can be selected for trade training.

This would not work for all trades;  some trades like mine take a fairly significant amount of time to get someone up to snuff AFTER initial trades training.  If we delayed it any longer, people would be coming off their "type" course and basically be able to release after a 5 year VIE.

Quote
All in all, we should recruit more, but actually retain less.  Only the best and most willing should be retained.  If folks realize that retention is competitive, they may up their game or move on.  It should be that only the Sgts-CWOs and Majs-Gens would be career men/women.  Everyone else would do a few years and get out.  This keeps fresh blood coming into the organization, yet retains the experience at levels where it's truly needed.  It would also likely mean that more Canadians would have a chance to serve in the armed forces and that has to be good thing.

Opposite side of the coin;  how many people would decide to not join because there was a sense that they couldn't make a career out of the military?  Corporate knowledge exists lower than the Sgt and/or Maj level.  I'd rather keep the MCpls, Cpls, and Capts with years and years of experience and knowledge over the "more Canadians would have the chance to serve" aspect.  I don't see that as a benefit as a standalone side effect of kicking people out because they won't ever make it to MWO or LCol.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 09:36:25 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline MAJONES

  • Directing Staff
  • Member
  • *
  • 4,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 147
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2018, 09:46:39 »
I'm of the opinion we retain too many of the wrong people simply because the right people have other/better options and that's where we need to improve...

Spot on.  It leads to a viscous circle; Junior members get annoyed with lack-lustre mid-level to senior leadership.  The most talented of our junior members have better options outside the CF so they pull the pin before they get promoted thus leaving less talent to promote into mid level leadership.  Mid level leadership does not improve, (or even deteriorates).  The same cycle occurs for the jump from mid-level leadership to senior leadership.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,493
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2018, 09:53:24 »
My idea is that I wouldn't give them any specific trade training in that first three years.  Admittedly, I'm not sure how or even if it would work for the Air Force, but I'm fairly confident, we could usefully employ personnel in the both the Army and Navy for three years without a great deal of trade training.  As it is, we currently recruit a sailor who can spend upwards of a year on training before he even sees his first ship.  Once at sea, although he will get a fair bit of time working in his trade, he will also spend a lot of time on general shipboard duties that anyone can do and have to be done (cleaning stations, watch on deck, scullery, laundry, etc).  Why spend a lot of time in training someone for a job they will only get to do for part of the time?

I envision a system where people are recruited for a three year term.  They are given basic military and environmental training and then employed on general duties for the duration of their three years with only minimal follow-on training.  In that three years, they would get exposure to all aspects of service life in their respective environments, which in the case of the Navy would include spending time with all departments on board (e.g. spend a few months/weeks helping the stokers clean engines, general duties in the galley, etc.).  The idea would be for them to get good exposure to everything that goes on onboard a ship.  They would also spend some time ashore helping (and learning about) supporting ships.  Add in to all of this would be time spent on "public duties" (e.g. ceremonial guards - instead of hitting up units to provide).  The idea is that at the end of the three years, they've had a chance to look at us and we've had a chance to look at them in order for everyone to make better and more informed choices about what trade they wish to pursue.  I'm sure we could do something similar for the Army in the sense that everyone could spend a few months in each of the combat arms as well as a service battalion, etc.


Sorry, I don't believe we have a big enough force to allow people to go on a 3 year GD program.  I also think you'd find that a lot of people walking into recruiting centers might rethink the CAF as a career if they were told "oh, know, you won't be a Naval Electronics Technician until after 3 years minimum of scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations.

Not sure where you are posted, but it strikes me that it may have been a while since you've been at a line unit and lead the new generation of young people coming into the CAF...
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 10:21:23 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,017
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2018, 10:09:21 »
Sorry, I don't believe we have a big enough force to allow people to go on a 3 year GD program.  I also think you'd find that a lot of people walking into recruiting centers might rethink the CAF as a career if they were told "oh, know, you won't be a Naval Electronics Technician until after 3 years minimum of scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations.

Not sure where you are posted, but it strikes me that it may have been a while since you've been at a line unit and lead the new generation of young people coming into the CAF...

Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.
Optio

Offline 1984

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,924
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 299
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2018, 11:29:51 »
Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.

+1

Read the ACISS thread if you want a real life example of what deleting all sense of purpose can do to an occupation.

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 251
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2018, 12:45:33 »
Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.

I believe after those three years there would be some sort of incentive - paid for secondary education or a signing bonus if you decide to continue with the CF. The whole point is to get people into the CF in the first place.

At our current system it just takes too long to do anything. Recruiting wait times - a disaster (I applied while still in high school June 2013 and out of the blue got an offer in Sept 2014). On the air tech side of things we need to do away with QL3s completely, integrate common core aspects into on-fleet courses. Why am I being taught how to pull blades off a helicopter if I'm going into the fighter world? It's a waste of time and the civilian world doesn't recognise our QL3s as AME training anymore anyway. The posting system needs to change too, I should know where my first posting is before basic training. After St. Jean send me directly to my unit where I can feel useful right away. This way people can be evaluated on simple tasks, only then should we be offering them contract extensions past the three years. You accept? Good, you are sent on your fleet training and off you go. You deny? Good, here is $x for post secondary education but you are on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CF for three years. 


Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 320
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2018, 12:58:36 »
I believe after those three years there would be some sort of incentive - paid for secondary education or a signing bonus if you decide to continue with the CF. The whole point is to get people into the CF in the first place.

At our current system it just takes too long to do anything. Recruiting wait times - a disaster (I applied while still in high school June 2013 and out of the blue got an offer in Sept 2014). On the air tech side of things we need to do away with QL3s completely, integrate common core aspects into on-fleet courses. Why am I being taught how to pull blades off a helicopter if I'm going into the fighter world? It's a waste of time and the civilian world doesn't recognise our QL3s as AME training anymore anyway. The posting system needs to change too, I should know where my first posting is before basic training. After St. Jean send me directly to my unit where I can feel useful right away. This way people can be evaluated on simple tasks, only then should we be offering them contract extensions past the three years. You accept? Good, you are sent on your fleet training and off you go. You deny? Good, here is $x for post secondary education but you are on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CF for three years.

So you’re proposing the CAF invest money in someone to get them BMQ qualified, pay them for three years to do GD work, then pay for their education when they release even though at no point have they ever been trade qualified and therefore not really that useful in the grand scheme of things?  (Just because one may feel useful.....does not mean they are useful)

I don’t understand your “you’re on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CAF for the three years” comment.  Are you saying they would have to pay back their salary during that time thus rendering their last three years of work as having no compensation for them?

Sounds like a fiscal nightmare at best and would completely cripple certain (if not all) trades.  I joined because I wanted to go to Afghanistan.  If I had been told by recruiting “ok join, and in three years you may or may not get loaded onto your trades training to learn to how to do armoured stuff, and then a year or two after that you may get to go on tour” I can assure you I would have walked out of the recruiting office and I imagine most others would as well.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 13:11:10 by ExRCDcpl »

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 224,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,829
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2018, 13:04:23 »
Sounds like this recruiting and retention thing is mostly about the 'people stuff':

Life as a Private

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command asked RAND Arroyo Center to undertake research to improve its understanding of soldiers' motivations to join the Army, and how the reality of Army life matches up with expectations. Who joins, why, and how satisfied are they with their decisions? This study's portrayal of the U.S. Army private could serve as an educational tool for a variety of important audiences, such as Army senior leadership, junior officers, noncommissioned officers, and prospective new recruits.

Key Findings

Soldiers Join the Army for Family, Institutional, and Occupational Reasons
•   The importance of family is a recurring feature in the narratives of soldiers.
•   Soldiers cite call to serve and perception of honor, but also thirst for adventure, benefits, and pay.

Many Soldiers Value the Opportunity to Become a Military Professional
•   Most soldiers in the research sample acknowledged the unique benefits that they got from Army service.
•   Despite generally favorable experiences overall, soldiers are frustrated by the bureaucratic characteristics of work in the Army.
•   The information soldiers consume prior to joining their first unit may influence expectations about Army service; more accurate information than that derived from action movies might improve satisfaction with their real experience.

Soldiers Value Relationships with Other Soldiers as a Critical Feature of Army Life
•   The critical importance of camaraderie and good small-unit leadership suggests avenues to enhance soldier recruitment and retention.

Most Soldiers Enjoy Positive Well-Being and Satisfying Social Lives
•   Most soldiers in the research sample said that their leadership and peers were an important source of support.
•   In fact, leadership and fellow soldiers were cited as the most important source of motivation, camaraderie, and overall social support.

Soldiers in the Sample Were Satisfied with Army Life
•   A variety of factors affect soldiers' intent to reenlist, such as family concerns, injuries, promotions, civilian opportunities, and the likelihood of deploying to war. The majority of soldiers believed their Army service would help them find future work.

Recommendations
•   Consider emphasizing occupational benefits and adding social bonds to the current Army Value Proposition (AVP).
•   Highlight social bonds as part of reenlistment campaigns.
•   Consider incentivizing first-term soldiers who successfully recruit from their friends and peer networks.
•   Ensure recruiters provide accurate information about military occupational specialties.
•   Improve the accuracy of information about Army life that new recruits receive.
•   Following Basic Combat Training/Advanced Individual Training and One-Station Unit Training, provide accurate information about installations and unit assignments.
•   Maintain or expand recruitment programs that build parental support.
•   Help leaders engage soldiers in relevant and educational tasks and otherwise use soldiers' time more effectively.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2252.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail#download
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 320
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2018, 13:09:46 »
Sounds like this recruiting and retention thing is mostly about the 'people stuff':

Life as a Private

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command asked RAND Arroyo Center to undertake research to improve its understanding of soldiers' motivations to join the Army, and how the reality of Army life matches up with expectations. Who joins, why, and how satisfied are they with their decisions? This study's portrayal of the U.S. Army private could serve as an educational tool for a variety of important audiences, such as Army senior leadership, junior officers, noncommissioned officers, and prospective new recruits.

Key Findings

Soldiers Join the Army for Family, Institutional, and Occupational Reasons
•   The importance of family is a recurring feature in the narratives of soldiers.
•   Soldiers cite call to serve and perception of honor, but also thirst for adventure, benefits, and pay.

Many Soldiers Value the Opportunity to Become a Military Professional
•   Most soldiers in the research sample acknowledged the unique benefits that they got from Army service.
•   Despite generally favorable experiences overall, soldiers are frustrated by the bureaucratic characteristics of work in the Army.
•   The information soldiers consume prior to joining their first unit may influence expectations about Army service; more accurate information than that derived from action movies might improve satisfaction with their real experience.

Soldiers Value Relationships with Other Soldiers as a Critical Feature of Army Life
•   The critical importance of camaraderie and good small-unit leadership suggests avenues to enhance soldier recruitment and retention.

Most Soldiers Enjoy Positive Well-Being and Satisfying Social Lives
•   Most soldiers in the research sample said that their leadership and peers were an important source of support.
•   In fact, leadership and fellow soldiers were cited as the most important source of motivation, camaraderie, and overall social support.

Soldiers in the Sample Were Satisfied with Army Life
•   A variety of factors affect soldiers' intent to reenlist, such as family concerns, injuries, promotions, civilian opportunities, and the likelihood of deploying to war. The majority of soldiers believed their Army service would help them find future work.

Recommendations
•   Consider emphasizing occupational benefits and adding social bonds to the current Army Value Proposition (AVP).
•   Highlight social bonds as part of reenlistment campaigns.
•   Consider incentivizing first-term soldiers who successfully recruit from their friends and peer networks.
•   Ensure recruiters provide accurate information about military occupational specialties.
•   Improve the accuracy of information about Army life that new recruits receive.
•   Following Basic Combat Training/Advanced Individual Training and One-Station Unit Training, provide accurate information about installations and unit assignments.
•   Maintain or expand recruitment programs that build parental support.
•   Help leaders engage soldiers in relevant and educational tasks and otherwise use soldiers' time more effectively.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2252.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail#download

I understand this is American, but I find it interesting their research indicates younger soldiers put an emphasis on comraderie and social aspects considering everytime I walk through shacks they are playing video games and not talking to each other.

Online Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,785
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2018, 13:25:35 »
Either offer a very sweet post CAF college/university/trade school re-education deal which will make several years of demeaning stations worth while. 

Did you miss the part where I said exactly that? 

Some folks seem to think I'm recommending that we enroll people for three years to paint rocks.  Far from it.  I'm arguing that first and foremost, we need to train personnel to be sailors, soldiers and air people.  After that, they can be usefully employed doing real jobs that don't require a lot of specialized training AND be exposed to the more detailed tasks that will require that more specialized training.  The key to this is that folks need to be sent to front line units and deployed sooner, rather than later.  A sailor doesn't need to complete his QL3 WEng Tech course before he joins the scullery party of his first ship, so why not wait until he's spent some time at sea and had a chance to observe and help out in all the Departments on board before he selects a trade?  More experience makes for better choices. 

I'm not talking about make-work projects.  The jobs I envision these folks doing are jobs that need to be done and are being done by our most junior personnel.  I just don't see the point of spending thousands of dollars in training someone for a technical trade right at the beginning when a large part of their first three years are going to be spent on the mundane tasks anyway.  Furthermore, instead of training for trades that people chose based on recruiting pamphlets and videos, why not give folks a chance to actually work alongside people already in those trades in order to get a better feel for what they're getting themselves into?  By doing this, both the CAF and the individual will have a better opportunity to make more informed decisions. 

The mundane tasks need to be done anyway and the most junior people are going to do them.  Let's get a better bang for our training buck by delaying the more intense, difficult and expensive (i.e. trade) training until a point where we can all make better decisions.

You don't necessarily entice people to do something by making it easier.  Sometimes you do it by making it a challenge.  I would argue that you will get a better overall recruit by emphasizing how challenging it will be, rather than how comfortable.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 13:47:26 by Pusser »
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Online Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,785
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #40 on: May 25, 2018, 13:53:30 »
Sorry, I don't believe we have a big enough force to allow people to go on a 3 year GD program.  I also think you'd find that a lot of people walking into recruiting centers might rethink the CAF as a career if they were told "oh, know, you won't be a Naval Electronics Technician until after 3 years minimum of scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations.

Not sure where you are posted, but it strikes me that it may have been a while since you've been at a line unit and lead the new generation of young people coming into the CAF...

However, the reality is that we currently train people for these great jobs, but they actually then end up scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations a good part of the time anyway.  In my plan, at least we're up front about it and then dangle a significant carrot at the end.  Right now, we see a lot of folks leaving at the end of their BEs and taking their expensive training with them.  Perhaps, if we expose them to the military lifestyle, before we invest heavily in training, then better decisions can be made and the ones who stay for the later training will be more inclined to make a career of it.

I realize I speak heresy, but it's not like the current system is working so well that there's no room for different ideas.

PS:  I believe the Royal Australian Navy has a "gap year" program that does something similar to what I've described.
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,017
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2018, 14:07:14 »
Well I think you have it partially right.  After their VIE anyone should be allowed to remuster if they can qualify for another trade.

When I was a recruiter 10+ years ago many people up and left because their trade wouldn't let them transfer to something else.   There should be a program that allows people to sign up for any of the grunt jobs (infantry armour, boatswain etc) with the promise that after their VIE and if they can qualify to remuster to another trade (targeted trades could be a consideration).  In fact some trades should go back to being remuster only.  Or sign on for longer in your trade with an educational bonus or re-signing bonus. 
Optio

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 251
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2018, 14:09:35 »
So you’re proposing the CAF invest money in someone to get them BMQ qualified, pay them for three years to do GD work, then pay for their education when they release even though at no point have they ever been trade qualified and therefore not really that useful in the grand scheme of things?

Not GD work, have them do job shadowing or OJT.

[qoute]I don’t understand your “you’re on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CAF for the three years” comment.  Are you saying they would have to pay back their salary during that time thus rendering their last three years of work as having no compensation for them?[/qoute]

Salary they can keep.

[qoute]Sounds like a fiscal nightmare at best and would completely cripple certain (if not all) trades.  I joined because I wanted to go to Afghanistan.  If I had been told by recruiting “ok join, and in three years you may or may not get loaded onto your trades training to learn to how to do armoured stuff, and then a year or two after that you may get to go on tour” I can assure you I would have walked out of the recruiting office and I imagine most others would as well.
[/quote]

This wouldn’t apply to all trades since some trades have higher costs than others to make someone trades qualified. We already waste how much money keeping people on warrior/PAT platoons for god knows how long, not to mention the untold number of crap pumps who couldn’t be trusted to flip burgers let alone turn wrenches. Our biggest problem right now has already been mentioned in this thread. The good people who you want in charge release because they are frustrated with all idiots making the same money and benefits for doing more work. What’s the saying, you are rewarded for your hardwork with more work?

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 489,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,920
    • The job.
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2018, 14:16:48 »
The U.S. Army Recruiting Command asked RAND Arroyo Center to undertake research to improve its understanding of soldiers' motivations to join the Army, and how the reality of Army life matches up with expectations.

Quote
The majority of soldiers believed their Army service would help them find future work.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2252.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail#download

They have reason to, in the US.

QUOTE
Military Veterans

The NYPD has a special place for those who have served, and we value the training, skills and management experience of military personnel, which is one of the main reasons we actively recruit veterans.

Additional benefits available to military veterans include:
•Veterans can earn GI Bill benefits in addition to their salary during their first two years.
•Police Officer Exam scores are kept on file indefinitely. Upon leaving the U.S. Armed Forces, veterans have 6 months to start the hiring process.
•Veterans can add 4 years to the maximum hiring age, or 6 years if they served during war or national emergency. This applies only to veterans under age 40.
•Veterans can buy back three years of their military time to be applied to their NYPD retirement.
•Officers who are active reservists are allowed 30 paid military days per year, in addition to their vacation time.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-benefits.page

LAPD
MILITARY CREDITS

"Military credits (5 points) are normally given only for a five-year period following the date of separation from active duty. If you served on active duty status in the U.S military during any one of the following periods, you may qualify to have the five additional veterans points added to your Personal Qualifications Essay (PQE) score."


END QUOTE

Although, regarding candidates with PTSD claims,

QUOTE

New York, New York—Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a national nonprofit legal center, filed a Charge of Discrimination for Julio Andrade, a former Marine, after the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) denied him a job as a Fire Fighter because of a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) he received at the time of his honorable discharge from service in the Iraq war, approximately 8 years earlier.
http://dralegal.org/featured/fdny-violates-ada-pre-judging-veteran-applicants-unfit/

"Julio Andrade passed every test to be a firefighter, but a department psychiatrist DQ’d the Marine with stereotypes like ‘people with PTSD can’t socialize’ "

END QUOTE

But, in Toronto,

QUOTE

Q: I am a current/past member of the military. Do I get special consideration?

A: Although we appreciate your service in the military, all current and past members of any military service will proceed through the Constable Selection System like any other candidate.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/uni_faq.php#q28

END QUOTE
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 15:11:02 by mariomike »

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 224,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,829
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2018, 16:13:10 »
They have reason to, in the US.

QUOTE
Military Veterans

The NYPD has a special place for those who have served, and we value the training, skills and management experience of military personnel, which is one of the main reasons we actively recruit veterans.

Additional benefits available to military veterans include:
•Veterans can earn GI Bill benefits in addition to their salary during their first two years.
•Police Officer Exam scores are kept on file indefinitely. Upon leaving the U.S. Armed Forces, veterans have 6 months to start the hiring process.
•Veterans can add 4 years to the maximum hiring age, or 6 years if they served during war or national emergency. This applies only to veterans under age 40.
•Veterans can buy back three years of their military time to be applied to their NYPD retirement.
•Officers who are active reservists are allowed 30 paid military days per year, in addition to their vacation time.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-benefits.page

LAPD
MILITARY CREDITS

"Military credits (5 points) are normally given only for a five-year period following the date of separation from active duty. If you served on active duty status in the U.S military during any one of the following periods, you may qualify to have the five additional veterans points added to your Personal Qualifications Essay (PQE) score."


END QUOTE

Although, regarding candidates with PTSD claims,

QUOTE

New York, New York—Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a national nonprofit legal center, filed a Charge of Discrimination for Julio Andrade, a former Marine, after the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) denied him a job as a Fire Fighter because of a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) he received at the time of his honorable discharge from service in the Iraq war, approximately 8 years earlier.
http://dralegal.org/featured/fdny-violates-ada-pre-judging-veteran-applicants-unfit/

"Julio Andrade passed every test to be a firefighter, but a department psychiatrist DQ’d the Marine with stereotypes like ‘people with PTSD can’t socialize’ "

END QUOTE

But, in Toronto,

QUOTE

Q: I am a current/past member of the military. Do I get special consideration?

A: Although we appreciate your service in the military, all current and past members of any military service will proceed through the Constable Selection System like any other candidate.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/uni_faq.php#q28

END QUOTE

FWIW, the British Army has come to a similar conclusion about the messages they should send to potential recruits:

Army fights troops shortfall with new recruitment ads about camaraderie

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/army-fights-troops-shortfall-new-recruitment-ads-camaraderie/

The Army will launch a revamped £3m recruitment advertising campaign focusing on comradeship among soldiers, after commanders admitted previous attempts were failing to turn around a worsening manning shortfall.

New television adverts beginning on Saturday will advertise the “unique lasting bonds of friendship” found in the Army and will replace a campaign boasting of the skills soldiers can learn.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 433,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,157
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2018, 16:22:19 »
There are three core recruiting messages; each resonates to a different degree with different people.


Learn - people join to get transferable skills.

Earn - people join to make money.

Serve - people join for the camaraderie, and sense of service.


Voila.  Mix those three concepts in differing proportions for different audiences, and you've got your recruiting advertising all done.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 224,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,829
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2018, 16:35:40 »
There are three core recruiting messages; each resonates to a different degree with different people.


Learn - people join to get transferable skills.

Earn - people join to make money.

Serve - people join for the camaraderie, and sense of service.


Voila.  Mix those three concepts in differing proportions for different audiences, and you've got your recruiting advertising all done.

But how do these three dimensions connect to the Venn Girl Paradox dynamic? ;)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/09/14/the-girl-paradox/#.WwhzVjYm5n0
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Mediman14

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 188
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2018, 17:24:19 »
As I read through all the comments, there is a lot great ideas. If only someone would take some of these ideas to Ottawa! Within the last day or two, I recently had the opportunity to speak to an Snr Officer who claimed to be at a briefing in Ottawa about CAF Transformation given by one of the many Generals floating around. Apparently someone had opened their minds and determine that the CAF policies are to rigid. To rigid to recruit and retain our members. One example of this was that a Reg Force Mbr could switch to the PRes much easier to help dealing with life issues. Once resolved, the Mbr could be able to switch to the Reg Force again. Another thing was to allow LWOP option more readily available to mbrs. However, one suggestion I have is to support our Mbrs instead of quoting or going by some policy that is outdated! Maybe this could be the job of one of those Generals that float around!

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #48 on: May 25, 2018, 17:47:51 »
Did you miss the part where I said exactly that? 

Some folks seem to think I'm recommending that we enroll people for three years to paint rocks.  Far from it.  I'm arguing that first and foremost, we need to train personnel to be sailors, soldiers and air people.  After that, they can be usefully employed doing real jobs that don't require a lot of specialized training AND be exposed to the more detailed tasks that will require that more specialized training.  The key to this is that folks need to be sent to front line units and deployed sooner, rather than later.  A sailor doesn't need to complete his QL3 WEng Tech course before he joins the scullery party of his first ship, so why not wait until he's spent some time at sea and had a chance to observe and help out in all the Departments on board before he selects a trade?  More experience makes for better choices. 

I'm not talking about make-work projects.  The jobs I envision these folks doing are jobs that need to be done and are being done by our most junior personnel.  I just don't see the point of spending thousands of dollars in training someone for a technical trade right at the beginning when a large part of their first three years are going to be spent on the mundane tasks anyway.  Furthermore, instead of training for trades that people chose based on recruiting pamphlets and videos, why not give folks a chance to actually work alongside people already in those trades in order to get a better feel for what they're getting themselves into?  By doing this, both the CAF and the individual will have a better opportunity to make more informed decisions. 

The mundane tasks need to be done anyway and the most junior people are going to do them.  Let's get a better bang for our training buck by delaying the more intense, difficult and expensive (i.e. trade) training until a point where we can all make better decisions.

You don't necessarily entice people to do something by making it easier.  Sometimes you do it by making it a challenge.  I would argue that you will get a better overall recruit by emphasizing how challenging it will be, rather than how comfortable.

I must have missed that in the same way you missed my pointing out it's the early years of crap jobs ad nasuem that is driving the youngsters away and not hooking up for another 20 years of the best. 

I'm sorry, but you're far away from the coal face and lower decks as a member of the WR, especially being here in Ottawa.  I believe you're out of touch with the kids.  Hell, both you and l are old men and out of touch because of it.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 212,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,493
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Retention vs Recruiting
« Reply #49 on: May 25, 2018, 20:27:17 »
Well I think you have it partially right.  After their VIE anyone should be allowed to remuster if they can qualify for another trade.

When I was a recruiter 10+ years ago many people up and left because their trade wouldn't let them transfer to something else.   There should be a program that allows people to sign up for any of the grunt jobs (infantry armour, boatswain etc) with the promise that after their VIE and if they can qualify to remuster to another trade (targeted trades could be a consideration).  In fact some trades should go back to being remuster only.  Or sign on for longer in your trade with an educational bonus or re-signing bonus.

Basically take the LOTP and beef it up some;  the problem right now is the OUTCAP numbers that are attached to trade health;  2% of a GREEN trades' TES can OT, 1% for AMBER and 0.5% for RED.

If the CAF really wanted, they could set more #s aside in trades that Cbt Arms folks *normally* consider for OT.  I don't know what they are, someone must have kept track of that type of info but stuff like AVN, MP, Med Tech, etc....set aside more positions for VOT (U) and make less of them avail to "off the street" recruiting.  Something like that.

Personally, I think everyone joining should start off in a trade that is 'operations focused', whether it be a sailing, soldering or aviation or direct support to those, for several years so they 'get it' once they're on the support side.  We have too many people who understand 'tail' but not 'teeth'.
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.