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

[Halifax Tar]

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.

MELs can go on for years. People can tie up positions for long periods of time with those and still remain in trade and in receipt of financial allowances too.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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?

I'd rather we punt the opted out/MEL/retention member away on that posting and keep the Bosun here.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

Your argument is a mess. You are conflating two completely different things as if they are the same. What does being on a MEL and unfit sea have anything to do “I am fit for duty and enjoy sailing, but would rather not be promoted past PO2”?

 

[SupersonicMax]

I'd rather we punt the opted out/MEL/retention member away on that posting and keep the Bosun here.

So, they want a break from sailing or not? If younhave a limitee amount of shore positions in Halifax/Esquimalt, how do you expect people take a break? Like other trades at the Sgt/WO level, there are breaks available at HHQs.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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

The easiest way is to just not offer further TOS. If someone is just under-performing, administer an adverse PDR/PAcE equivalent and if needed, Remedial Measures. The CAF needs to do the paperwork justify things like ARs for horribly underperforming people; when the CAF doesn’t, the AR will fail because someone was lazy and the mbr is protected with procedural fairness.

How many people? As many as the Career Manager needs for the trade to produce what the CAF expects it to. How long? Depending on trade health, I’d say.

Positions? If it is someone who is making the superiors life difficult, their MAP and PAC form (Posting advisory committee) tells where they want to be and what they want to do. So the opposite of that?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.

Imagine working in an organization, whose only real job is legitimately using violence on behalf of the State and you get a person who is like "I'm really good at being XXX and I just want to do that to help the organization achieve it's primary mission".

The organization replies "that's great Capt XXX that you are a really good warfighter and wanna manage some violence and all that but we are kinda pissed that you didn't get your second language profile and turned down a job at CFRG so like you better go find a new job"



Only the Military would invest $$$$Millions of dollars training someone only to never employ them at said job. Not only that, they'll waste more money and time on people that they've invested nothing in and are unproven commodities.

They will spend no time investing more money in to proven commodities and won't even care if they leave LOL

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I just wanted into point out, not everyone who is on a PCAT is unfit their current trade, flying/sailing/deploying and gives up environmental allowances.

Not everyone who is on a PCAT breeches UoS, either. They have MELs likely; the L stands for limitations.

Using a P2 hard navy trade as an example; mbr is assessed a PCAT but can still serve, just not fully 100% “unlimited”. Say, they need specialist assessment annually. Maybe they can’t sail on extended deployments longer than 2 month without having an out of sequence Part 1 and/or Part 2 medical.

I see a prime candidate for an instructor billet. Mbr progresses in rank, now a P1 and goes into a shore Ops billet or CJOC. Continues to progress and contribute, posted to a LCMM or Career Manager billet, or CFLRS or…

The CAF invests dollars into every person we train. We need to look at mbrs, even ones on MELs and PCATs as investments and look for how we can best continue to draw from that investment.

I suggest that approach might even be financially responsible to our bosses; Canadian tax payers.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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?

There was a CANFORGEN released very recently on remote work/ postings. I haven’t read the Instr yet…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I just wanted into point out, not everyone who is on a PCAT is unfit their current trade, flying/sailing/deploying and gives up environmental allowances.

Not everyone who is on a PCAT breeches UoS, either. They have MELs likely; the L stands for limitations.

Using a P2 hard navy trade as an example; mbr is assessed a PCAT but can still serve, just not fully 100% “unlimited”. Say, they need specialist assessment annually. Maybe they can’t sail on extended deployments longer than 2 month without having an out of sequence Part 1 and/or Part 2 medical.

I see a prime candidate for an instructor billet. Mbr progresses in rank, now a P1 and goes into a shore Ops billet or CJOC. Continues to progress and contribute, posted to a LCMM or Career Manager billet, or CFLRS or…

The CAF invests dollars into every person we train. We need to look at mbrs, even ones on MELs and PCATs as investments and look for how we can best continue to draw from that investment.

I suggest that approach might even be financially responsible to our bosses; Canadian tax payers.

Don't get me wrong, there is a time when it's time for someone to retire. That's why I am a big fan of drawing an immediate annuity earlier.

Personally, I think NCMs should be able to draw a pension at 15 years and Officers at 20 years.

There are some jobs in particular:

SOF, Divers, SAR Tech, Combat Arms, Aircrew, etc where it's a young persons game. The career window for those individuals is shorter and they should be able to retire earlier on a reduced pension.

I also believe in age limits for certain occupations as well. But that's for another discussion entirely.


As far as talent management goes though, the CAF literally doesn't do it. There are also too many trades, particularly in the Officer world.

Many Officer jobs that are tied to a trade, particularly a lot of support jobs, could be filled by any GSO. Ditto a lot of jobs in the NCM world.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

MELs can go on for years. People can tie up positions for long periods of time with those and still remain in trade and in receipt of financial allowances too.

The CBI is actually pretty clear on when mbrs stop receiving things like environmental allowances including SDA:

Chapter 205- Allowances for officers and non-commissioned members - Canada.ca

Chapter 205 - Allowances for officers and non-commissioned-members

www.canada.ca

Specifically, 205.15(2) sub-para’s B and C.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Don't get me wrong, there is a time when it's time for someone to retire. That's why I am a big fan of drawing an immediate annuity earlier.

Personally, I think NCMs should be able to draw a pension at 15 years and Officers at 20 years.

There are some jobs in particular:

SOF, Divers, SAR Tech, Combat Arms, Aircrew, etc where it's a young persons game. The career window for those individuals is shorter and they should be able to retire earlier on a reduced pension.

I also believe in age limits for certain occupations as well. But that's for another discussion entirely.

Agree ‘mostly’. Some fleets are easier on the body than others and mbrs can, on average, handle operational flying longer. LRP AES Ops compared to MH AES Ops is a quick example; MH is fairly significantly more physically demanding than Aurora life.

Age; is a better metric “fitness and health”?

As far as talent management goes though, the CAF literally doesn't do it. There are also too many trades, particularly in the Officer world.

Many Officer jobs that are tied to a trade, particularly a lot of support jobs, could be filled by any GSO. Ditto a lot of jobs in the NCM world.

Maybe the CAF should consider a career stream called “ATR”; as an AES Op I could request it at “insert YOS and/or Rank gate” and would commit myself to never flying again. Incoukd end up as NCO IC pencils at CJOC, or recruiting, or… any position deemed suitable for ATR folks.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Your argument is a mess. You are conflating two completely different things as if they are the same. What does being on a MEL and unfit sea have anything to do “I am fit for duty and enjoy sailing, but would rather not be promoted past PO2”?

It's not. It rolls into the same ball of 2nd and 3rd line positions being tied up for years with the static people while we strain the deployable people to their limits and break them.

Opting out, MELs and retention all adds to clog a system and only adds to to the strain.

My offered solution here was offer no retentions in Halifax/Esq. As all of those billites are required to maintain a sea to shore ratio. Offer those positions in static bases like Ottawa or Borden. Cant really do anything about MELs or Opting Out.

The big issue with opting out is the volume per rank in trade. Trades are a pyramid. Every person who opts out from MCpl and above adds to the congestion. And there is a critical mass if we simply allow any to opt out. Take the MWO rank. Say your trade has 20 MWO positions is 5 opt out that big hit on the available positions to develop further MWOs. That the ripples down the pyramid and amplifies as it goes.

It's fine to use the Cpl RCAF tech as the exception but indefinite lateral employment will multiply over time and cause congestion their as well. Also it's offered to all ranks, not sure about GO/FOs, and I see more opting out at the Sgt and above level than anywhere else.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Imagine working in an organization, whose only real job is legitimately using violence on behalf of the State and you get a person who is like "I'm really good at being XXX and I just want to do that to help the organization achieve it's primary mission".

The organization replies "that's great Capt XXX that you are a really good warfighter and wanna manage some violence and all that but we are kinda pissed that you didn't get your second language profile and turned down a job at CFRG so like you better go find a new job"



Only the Military would invest $$$$Millions of dollars training someone only to never employ them at said job. Not only that, they'll waste more money and time on people that they've invested nothing in and are unproven commodities.

They will spend no time investing more money in to proven commodities and won't even care if they leave LOL

You know I am sympathetic with your situation. We've discussed this.

We need to find a balance. We have a job to do. And you know as well as I that if we continue down this same path in the not so distant future were going to have a hard time scrapping together a crew for an Orca let alone a CPF.

We have massive culture obstacles to overcome in the RCN. No fight from me on that front. But also have a job to do until the big heads call an OP pause have us go secure our spaces for a while we have to continue to shovel coal into the boilers.

 

[dimsum]

Maybe the CAF should consider a career stream called “ATR”; as an AES Op I could request it at “insert YOS and/or Rank gate” and would commit myself to never flying again. Incoukd end up as NCO IC pencils at CJOC, or recruiting, or… any position deemed suitable for ATR folks.

I'm guessing this would break the (archaic) system, but unless you're in specific staff spots that require that specialized knowledge (like DAR/DLR/DNR for a specific project) I'd argue that most, if not all, staff jobs should be ATR with a rank band of 2 ranks (e.g. Capt/Major).

I'm not sure why you need to be a specific trade to be an MCC at a certain CFRC. I guess it's to balance it out so it's not all filled by ACSOs or something (it's not) but CFRG would be a good test case for the "ATR, rank only" requirement.

 

[dapaterson]

ATR positions are assigned as BLMC to occupations. And most occs would rather let a position go empty than let another occ fill and potentially promote one more person.

 

[Halifax Tar]

ATR positions are assigned as BLMC to occupations. And most occs would rather let a position go empty than let another occ fill and potentially promote one more person.

That always drives me nuts. I've seen some real creative work by CMs and Ive seen some that considered it their own kingdom.

When I was at JSR we had a Hull Tech posted into to a Mat Tech position so him and his wife could be colocated. That's how we should do business.

 

[dimsum]

That always drives me nuts. I've seen some real creative work by CMs and Ive seen some that considered it their own kingdom.

When I was at JSR we had a Hull Tech posted into to a Mat Tech position so him and his wife could be colocated. That's how we should do business.

I'll say that I'm in a billet that's not technically for my occupation, and it's not ATR.

I'm not sure how widespread that is in the CAF though.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'll say that I'm in a billet that's not technically for my occupation, and it's not ATR.

I'm not sure how widespread that is in the CAF though.

We need to do this more especially for ATR or where transferable skills can be employed, a good example being the Hull Tech in a Mat Tech position. They chew some of the same dirt.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'll say that I'm in a billet that's not technically for my occupation, and it's not ATR.

I'm not sure how widespread that is in the CAF though.

Knowing you and the org, that is ludicrous. An honest Establishment Review is long overdue. BLMC state is but one symptom of a dysfunctional organization.