Acting Chief of Military Personnel on Diversity, Inclusion, and Culture Change Short-Term Initiatives

[Eye In The Sky]

Well I can tell you we are quickly reaching critical mass in some trades because we've chosen to continue to employ people who are in essence only providing a half or less of the value of their salary.

Those people should be properly scores on PER/PARs and consideration for further service after their current TOS shouldn’t be done in the spirit of lip service. However, I suspect trade health has a lot to do with these decisions. An amber or red trade Career Manager still needs to put names in positions.

Opting out of a PER should start a clock. After 3 years the member should be released.

I can’t agree, respectfully. I know some very good Majors who have no interest in being a CO. I know many WOs and MWOs who have similar interest in the CWO/CPO1 Corps (I’m one to them).

Those Officer and Warrant/Petty Officers still have much to offer the CAF. Cling-ons who are just adding 2%/year to their pension can be encouraged to reconsider their choice via other means (undesired posting for example).

Up or out has more cons than pro’s IMO.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Those people should be properly scores on PER/PARs and consideration for further service after their current TOS shouldn’t be done in the spirit of lip service. However, I suspect trade health has a lot to do with these decisions. An amber or red trade Career Manager still needs to put names in positions.



I can’t agree, respectfully. I know some very good Majors who have no interest in being a CO. I know many WOs and MWOs who have similar interest in the CWO/CPO1 Corps (I’m one to them).

Those Officer and Warrant/Petty Officers still have much to offer the CAF. Cling-ons who are just adding 2%/year to their pension can be encouraged to reconsider their choice via other means (undesired posting for example).

Up or out has more cons than pro’s IMO.

Ok. I see your point. Let me counter you with how many? For how long ? In what positions ?

 

[Jarnhamar]

but if you've been in for rank for 3+ years post EPZ with no potential or desire for advancement, what value are you are you to the organization anymore ?

On the other hand there are people in rank for 3+ years post EZP with potential and desire to advance but they don't speak french, have enough volunteer time, or aren't in the in crowd to merit?

Before we punt people for not wanting to play a larger role in the system we should consider fixing the system to make it more attractive to want to be a part of.

Regarding sacrificing the fit for the unfit, completely agree. However that's something that needs to be sorted out with our medical system. It's beyond frustrating sending troops out the door on multiple taskings with no breaks because their peers have no tacvest chits because of their bad backs while they're in the gym every day deadlifting hundreds of pounds.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So AR anyone who opts out is going to somehow make empty billets better? Christ on crutches, any other organization would be really happy to have qualified, capable skilled trades that are happy to do their job. If someone wants to stick around for 10 years as a corporal/captain, and they do everything they are supposed to do, no idea how that clogs up a system running at 50%-70% manning levels. They aren't considered for career courses or promotion so the are literally outside of any considerations for advancement.

Tying up ships and sizing our ops tempo to the number of healthy crews available is the only thing that can fix what you are talking about. Retaining qualified people, and recruiting more to fill the holes does that. Someone can be productive and happy with where they are without wanting to jump up to the next rank. Not retaining non-productive people is a completely unrelated issue, as is MELs.

We can keep people in the ranks they are happy with while concurrently shedding dead weight, and promoting capable and willing people. There really isn't an all/nothing approach required.

The 'up and out' attitude reminds me of 'if you don't like it, find something else' mantra. People say that, then wonder why people leave. We try to patch holes by supplementing with contractors for maintenance, so lots of opportunities for qualified maintainers to jump to industry to do the same jobs we would pay them for, but puts us deeper into the hole for going to sea. Similarly, we tell everyone they are sailors first, then are surprised when the engineering depts get tired of coming in early and leaving late and want to come in a 730 and leave at secure like the rest of the crew.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There's math involved. It's fine to have long-term coal-face employees, assuming the organization is roughly a pyramid. But if not everyone is going to make the cut at each level, how many slots can be clogged by lifers before the number of prospectives at level N preparing for N+1 is too few to provide a healthy selection pool?

 

[daftandbarmy]

So AR anyone who opts out is going to somehow make empty billets better? Christ on crutches, any other organization would be really happy to have qualified, capable skilled trades that are happy to do their job. If someone wants to stick around for 10 years as a corporal/captain, and they do everything they are supposed to do, no idea how that clogs up a system running at 50%-70% manning levels. They aren't considered for career courses or promotion so the are literally outside of any considerations for advancement.

Tying up ships and sizing our ops tempo to the number of healthy crews available is the only thing that can fix what you are talking about. Retaining qualified people, and recruiting more to fill the holes does that. Someone can be productive and happy with where they are without wanting to jump up to the next rank. Not retaining non-productive people is a completely unrelated issue, as is MELs.

We can keep people in the ranks they are happy with while concurrently shedding dead weight, and promoting capable and willing people. There really isn't an all/nothing approach required.

The 'up and out' attitude reminds me of 'if you don't like it, find something else' mantra. People say that, then wonder why people leave. We try to patch holes by supplementing with contractors for maintenance, so lots of opportunities for qualified maintainers to jump to industry to do the same jobs we would pay them for, but puts us deeper into the hole for going to sea. Similarly, we tell everyone they are sailors first, then are surprised when the engineering depts get tired of coming in early and leaving late and want to come in a 730 and leave at secure like the rest of the crew.

But if they don't want to be promoted, how can they be trusted by the people who do?

I mean, it's too risky if they won't back up any of your mad cap schemes at self-promotion to feather their own nests

 

[Halifax Tar]

There's math involved. It's fine to have long-term coal-face employees, assuming the organization is roughly a pyramid. But if not everyone is going to make the cut at each level, how many slots can be clogged by lifers before the number of prospectives at level N preparing for N+1 is too few to provide a healthy selection pool?

Thank you!

 

[Edward Campbell]

So AR anyone who opts out is going to somehow make empty billets better? Christ on crutches, any other organization would be really happy to have qualified, capable skilled trades that are happy to do their job. If someone wants to stick around for 10 years as a corporal/captain, and they do everything they are supposed to do, no idea how that clogs up a system running at 50%-70% manning levels. They aren't considered for career courses or promotion so the are literally outside of any considerations for advancement.

Tying up ships and sizing our ops tempo to the number of healthy crews available is the only thing that can fix what you are talking about. Retaining qualified people, and recruiting more to fill the holes does that. Someone can be productive and happy with where they are without wanting to jump up to the next rank. Not retaining non-productive people is a completely unrelated issue, as is MELs.

We can keep people in the ranks they are happy with while concurrently shedding dead weight, and promoting capable and willing people. There really isn't an all/nothing approach required.

The 'up and out' attitude reminds me of 'if you don't like it, find something else' mantra. People say that, then wonder why people leave. We try to patch holes by supplementing with contractors for maintenance, so lots of opportunities for qualified maintainers to jump to industry to do the same jobs we would pay them for, but puts us deeper into the hole for going to sea. Similarly, we tell everyone they are sailors first, then are surprised when the engineering depts get tired of coming in early and leaving late and want to come in a 730 and leave at secure like the rest of the crew.

But, see Brad just below. It's a question (and answer) of balance.

 

[Kilted]

Look I've been that guy who lived out of duffle bag doing pier head jumps for years and coming home to an empty apartment after deployments while the same people who shared my ranks and trade continued malingering and holding up other and not carrying their weight.

We need to do better at shedding dead weight. I'd rather lose another 25% if it meant it was the cancers and oxygen thiefs who we lost.

My only concern is that we just retain people because reasons. If we're going to retain someone it needs to done very selectively and with concern for the organisation.

And the army is starting to get Sgt qualified Pte's.

 

[Navy_Pete]

There's math involved. It's fine to have long-term coal-face employees, assuming the organization is roughly a pyramid. But if not everyone is going to make the cut at each level, how many slots can be clogged by lifers before the number of prospectives at level N preparing for N+1 is too few to provide a healthy selection pool?

From my limited observations since the opt in came in place as an option, we're really only talking a few people at each rank when we do the bun tosses, so 10% or less are opting out? It's not common, and usually the money is enough to motivate most people, but as you get more senior the number of positions at the next rank tapers off pretty significantly. But after reaching OFP, promotion is something like 10%-20%, so still a huge pool of candidates. Honestly think the issue is we're so short of people we're promoting people too fast, so no idea how anyone can possibly be 'clogging' the system in this environment.

Sure there are some small, specialized trades with really small numbers above them, but that's not the case for most people. In all the ones I've personnally been involved in on the Navy side it's been people who just wanted to serve out their contract at their current rank and didn't want to waste time doing different career courses, so saved the CAF money on training that would have no use and they filled jobs that needed doing. Win/win in my books.

I'm sure there are people on the occ manager side tracking this, but honestly if we start having really high numbers saying they have no interest to get promoted to the point where it is impacting operational effectiveness, probably a good indication that the CAF has fundamentally broken itself.

 

[Halifax Tar]

From my limited observations since the opt in came in place as an option, we're really only talking a few people at each rank when we do the bun tosses, so 10% or less are opting out? It's not common, and usually the money is enough to motivate most people, but as you get more senior the number of positions at the next rank tapers off pretty significantly. But after reaching OFP, promotion is something like 10%-20%, so still a huge pool of candidates. Honestly think the issue is we're so short of people we're promoting people too fast, so no idea how anyone can possibly be 'clogging' the system in this environment.

Sure there are some small, specialized trades with really small numbers above them, but that's not the case for most people. In all the ones I've personnally been involved in on the Navy side it's been people who just wanted to serve out their contract at their current rank and didn't want to waste time doing different career courses, so saved the CAF money on training that would have no use and they filled jobs that needed doing. Win/win in my books.

I'm sure there are people on the occ manager side tracking this, but honestly if we start having really high numbers saying they have no interest to get promoted to the point where it is impacting operational effectiveness, probably a good indication that the CAF has fundamentally broken itself.

Ok so again, how many ? For how long ? In what positions ?

I can tell you for PO1 Sup Tech positions in MARLANT recently we had, out of 11 positions, other than those already deployed, no deployable PO1s. Also 4 of those positions were held by pers on retention. Which means we had 1 position to try and cycle 6 sea going PO1s through to provide respite from the Ops Tempo.

I can guarantee you, that people who opt are aren't going to be keen to keep up a high ops tempo.

So if we are going to continue to allow any pers to opt out and continue to offer indefinite lateral employment it can only be if the situation it's advantageous for the organisation, the pers and their peers. And it should be reviewed periodically to ensure the advantageous situation remains.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Right, and that sucks, but you are trying to extrapolate the theoretical impact on 11 people in a single formation to the entire CAF.

Lots of scenarios where it's a good option for a lot of people, and some cases where it's not. Baby/bathwater though.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Right, and that sucks, but you are trying to extrapolate the theoretical impact on 11 people in a single formation to the entire CAF.

Lots of scenarios where it's a good option for a lot of people, and some cases where it's not. Baby/bathwater though.

So we agree then ?

So if we are going to continue to allow any pers to opt out and continue to offer indefinite lateral employment it can only be if the situation it's advantageous for the organisation, the pers and their peers. And it should be reviewed periodically to ensure the advantageous situation remains.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Only in the CAF would folks suggest we purposefully let good people go because they don’t want to progress up the ladder…. I am sure there are other non-trade specific positions those folks could go to. Having said this, the target audience for lateral progression career should be at the Cpl/MCpl and Capt/Maj level. In fact, the pilot and SARTEC pay has recently been adjusted to encourage exactly that. Some incentive levels require specific qualifications to « unlock . ». A Cpl with 20 years in rank makes around 12K a month.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Only in the CAF would folks suggest we purposefully let good people go because they don’t want to progress up the ladder…. I am sure there are other non-trade specific positions those folks could go to. Having said this, the target audience for lateral progression career should be at the Cpl/MCpl and Capt/Maj level. In fact, the pilot and SARTEC pay has recently been adjusted to encourage exactly that. Some incentive levels require specific qualifications to « unlock . ». A Cpl with 20 years in rank makes around 12K a month.

Again, how many ? How long ? What positions ?

It's all fine and dandy to talk of SARTECHs and Pilots. But when the PO2 Bosn can't get a shore posting because his peers have nailed them down on indefinite lateral employment or MELs what do we do ? And this will happen, it's happening already.

1 person at the CPO2 level who ops out causes ripple effects all the way down that trade and jams up progression as they warm seats the up and coming can't fill. Now that multiply that throughout the ranks in a trade and add in MELs and now we've created a monster.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Again, how many ? How long ? What positions ?

It's all fine and dandy to talk of SARTECHs and Pilots. But when the PO2 Bosn can't get a shore posting because his peers have nailed them down on indefinite lateral employment or MELs what do we do ? And this will happen, it's happening already.

Send them to a purple job.

 

[dapaterson]

There is a difference between "I am employable and opting out of PERs because I want to continue doing this sort of work" and retention for medical reasons (which on paper should not exceed three years).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Send them to a purple job.

So now your going to geographically relocate the bosn and their family ?

Sounds very CAF. Thanks for yours and your families sacrifice in this high ops tempo period, now pack up and move. We need to keep these spots here for those who opted out.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So now your going to geographically relocate the bosn and their family ?

Sounds very CAF. Thanks for yours and your families sacrifice in this high ops tempo period, now pack up and move. We need to keep these spots here for those who opted out.

No. Make them work remotely. There is now a process by which members can ask to work remotely. If that is not possible then yes, post them, like other elements do?

 

[dimsum]

But when the PO2 Bosn can't get a shore posting because his peers have nailed them down on indefinite lateral employment or MELs what do we do ?

Wait - if said peers have an MEL that means they can't sail, why are they still in that trade? A TCAT, sure...but if it becomes permanent?

If I lost my aircrew medical category, I don't stay in my current trade.