• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit

Actually folks I, and the great organization I fund raise and volunteer for, takes great offence at the 'R' word and that's the last I'll hear of it in this thread.
We can carry one with the discussion proper.

I am very serious here.
Bruce
army.ca staff
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Ok. First, infantry battalions ONLY work at the tactical level, not operational. A BG is a sub-portion of Bde/Bde Gp, which is itself TACTICAL level.  Operational begins at Divisional level (RC(S) was operational level in A-STAN,TFK was tactical).

Unless you happen to be an airborne battalion or a marine commando, or something like that, right? :)

 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Still tactical level....

You are confusing pedantic semantic labelling of levels with impact.  An airborne Battalion may be working at the "tactical level", but like as not their impact will be operational or strategic.

As to whether or not there really is any validity to the cult school of thought that there is such a thing as the "operational level", I will leave that to others to tackle.

Signed,

A guy who has worked at all "levels", from micro-tactical to grand strategic
 
PPCLI Guy said:
You are confusing pedantic semantic labelling of levels with impact.  An airborne Battalion may be working at the "tactical level", but like as not their impact will be operational or strategic.

As to whether or not there really is any validity to the cult school of thought that there is such a thing as the "operational level", I will leave that to others to tackle.

Signed,

A guy who has worked at all "levels", from micro-tactical to grand strategic

:highjack:
 
Getting back on topic, when we had to fill out questionaires on incentives, there was an option that different incentive levels be given things like short days.

I just want to say I fully support that since I think it's a more tangable benefit. No doubt the increased PER points thing will be hijacked so every gigantic MWO that's god's gift to the trade won't be left behind by the few senior personnel that do put actual care and effort into their fitness and appearance.

I can see that sentiment even showing up here, on the story of why the RSM should be allowed to fall out on PT. I never thought this was acceptable. If it's fitness related (ie I'm too fat) then you need to use that after 4pm time to get themselves back to a level where they're not subject of giggles and whispers. If it's injury then they should be on a med chit just like every other soldier giving them limitations and a return to full duty timeline. If it's "my knees/back are shot and never getting better" then they should consider that a sign they should retire.

Nobody is irreplaceable. For every MWO with 25 years experience there's a WO with 22 years waiting in the wings. For every WO with 22 years, there's a Sgt with 18 years and so on.
 
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
Getting back on topic, when we had to fill out questionaires on incentives, there was an option that different incentive levels be given things like short days.

I just want to say I fully support that since I think it's a more tangable benefit. No doubt the increased PER points thing will be hijacked so every gigantic MWO that's god's gift to the trade won't be left behind by the few senior personnel that do put actual care and effort into their fitness and appearance.

I can see that sentiment even showing up here, on the story of why the RSM should be allowed to fall out on PT. I never thought this was acceptable. If it's fitness related (ie I'm too fat) then you need to use that after 4pm time to get themselves back to a level where they're not subject of giggles and whispers. If it's injury then they should be on a med chit just like every other soldier giving them limitations and a return to full duty timeline. If it's "my knees/back are shot and never getting better" then they should consider that a sign they should retire.

Nobody is irreplaceable. For every MWO with 25 years experience there's a WO with 22 years waiting in the wings. For every WO with 22 years, there's a Sgt with 18 years and so on.

Maybe we should have different standards. As an Above Water Warfare Director, I'm trained to play a video game, and I'm tnt even exaggerating. A frigate's entire suite of weapons and sensors are operated using the Combat Management System (CMS), which is controlled via one of several Multi-Function Workstations (MFWs). Essentially, the MFW is a 3-screen video game console. I see little red symbols on the screens coming toward my ship and I click on them and then I blow them up.

Obviously, it's a lot more complicated than that, but the important thing here is that I do all of this sitting in a comfy chair using a keyboard and mouse. Your ability to do this job has everything to do with you ability to handle multiple inputs at once, process data quickly, make quick tactical decisions, execute them, all the while you are giving orders to your team while simultaneously briefing the ORO/CO. None of this requires me to be able to run 10km, lift or carry heavy weights, etc.

Trust me when I say I would much rather have an out-of shape slob sitting in the SWC chair than some super-fit sports all-star, as long as that slob has consistently shown that he is better and faster at tactically employing the ship's weapons and sensors. If you've ever had to sit through and watch (or participate in) an above water warfare exercise (especially at CFNOS where the tempo/standard is high), you'll have seen the difference between a SWC who knows how to defend the ship and one who doesn't. You don't need to see the guy doing his job, you can listen to him on the internal net, and watch his actions on the repeat of his console. Is the guy behind that voice fat and slow? Or is he super lean and fit? I can't tell! And I don't care! Just shoot down the missiles, please.

Nonetheless, physical fitness is a force multiplier, and I would rather have a super-fit SWC defending the ship than a fat-slob, assuming that both these individuals are otherwise equally skilled; the more fit person is going to be able to handle the stress of combat (and lack of sleep inherent with ship-borne duties) for a much greater time.

So what the hell does any of this have to do with incentive levels? It goes back to what I said in an earlier post about trying to do two things at once and screwing up both. People should be promoted on the ability to do their job, not on the physical fitness level. By incorporating merit points into the incentive levels, you give an advantage to those who are more physically fit; someone who's performance is lower could be ranked equally with someone with a higher performance, because their fitness merit points bumped them up just that much.

Physical fitness should be a leadership responsibility tailored to individual units; combat arms unit should given greater priority to it over air maintenance wings; Pilots should be pushed harder than Stokers, etc.

TL;DR - Short days, T-Shirts, Pins or even Medals would all be better incentives than Merit Points.


 
I hear you Lumber.

But I think you are back to the difference between "general fitness", which is a health matter and is relative (which is why there are categories of age and gender), and a specific physical capacity  - objective -test, which ought to be job specific.

That slob sitting in the SWC chair need not be able to run 10 Km with an infanteer, but you will damn happy he has basic fitness if your ship is hit by a missile and he has to lift the console off your legs in a smoke filled ops room and drag your butt on deck to abandon ship.

If those "merit" points for fitness are Forces wide, however, I think the whole opposition to it thing here may be an over reaction. If Force wide, I am almost willing to bet that it will turn out that way: the large majority of the people in the top category will come from the infantry, and in any given trade, for the remainders, there will be little to distinguish one person from another. In other words, in any given trade, when it comes to promotion, the effect of these points will be negligible because most people in that trade will generally have a similar level of fitness.
 
I think the most important "incentive" in keeping a soldier fit is a job. In my opinion we have the Universality of Service for a reason. This is like the baseline. We obviously want to be better than that, try harder and not go through our career on cruise control, but the UofS is still the basis of fitness - what every soldier in the CAF should be able to accomplish no matter what trade.

Now, just like Lumber said (by the way - waaay cool explanation on what you do) the different standards could be employed over and above depending on the trade. As long as the soldier meets the UofS. Either that, or raise the UofS criteria...

But circling back to my original statement - a job - well, we all know what happens when we can't meet the criteria of the UofS don't we? Those who want to serve with stay reasonably fit (the part of being fit that's in their control at least...)

Lumber's job is cool. Just want to say that again! Too bad you have to be on a ship over thousands of feet of water!!
 
To add to what Oldgateboatdriver is saying (if I may) - being physically fit is not so much about what abilities you need for your job when things are going as planned, but rather what abilities you need to have when things have taken a giant turn south. I argue that in ANY military occupation, that 'worst scenario' will involve the need to be physically fit to survive and help others do the same.

Besides, why can't a soldier/sailor/airman be both intellectually and physically fit? Does the former preclude the latter?
 
Lumber said:
Maybe we should have different standards. As an Above Water Warfare Director, I'm trained to play a video game, and I'm tnt even exaggerating. A frigate's entire suite of weapons and sensors are operated using the Combat Management System (CMS), which is controlled via one of several Multi-Function Workstations (MFWs). Essentially, the MFW is a 3-screen video game console. I see little red symbols on the screens coming toward my ship and I click on them and then I blow them up.

Obviously, it's a lot more complicated than that, but the important thing here is that I do all of this sitting in a comfy chair using a keyboard and mouse. Your ability to do this job has everything to do with you ability to handle multiple inputs at once, process data quickly, make quick tactical decisions, execute them, all the while you are giving orders to your team while simultaneously briefing the ORO/CO. None of this requires me to be able to run 10km, lift or carry heavy weights, etc.

Trust me when I say I would much rather have an out-of shape slob sitting in the SWC chair than some super-fit sports all-star, as long as that slob has consistently shown that he is better and faster at tactically employing the ship's weapons and sensors. If you've ever had to sit through and watch (or participate in) an above water warfare exercise (especially at CFNOS where the tempo/standard is high), you'll have seen the difference between a SWC who knows how to defend the ship and one who doesn't. You don't need to see the guy doing his job, you can listen to him on the internal net, and watch his actions on the repeat of his console. Is the guy behind that voice fat and slow? Or is he super lean and fit? I can't tell! And I don't care! Just shoot down the missiles, please.

Nonetheless, physical fitness is a force multiplier, and I would rather have a super-fit SWC defending the ship than a fat-slob, assuming that both these individuals are otherwise equally skilled; the more fit person is going to be able to handle the stress of combat (and lack of sleep inherent with ship-borne duties) for a much greater time.

So what the hell does any of this have to do with incentive levels? It goes back to what I said in an earlier post about trying to do two things at once and screwing up both. People should be promoted on the ability to do their job, not on the physical fitness level. By incorporating merit points into the incentive levels, you give an advantage to those who are more physically fit; someone who's performance is lower could be ranked equally with someone with a higher performance, because their fitness merit points bumped them up just that much.

Physical fitness should be a leadership responsibility tailored to individual units; combat arms unit should given greater priority to it over air maintenance wings; Pilots should be pushed harder than Stokers, etc.

TL;DR - Short days, T-Shirts, Pins or even Medals would all be better incentives than Merit Points.

I couldn't disagree more. Yes we all have trades, I'm a network administrator, my job could not be any more sedentary. That said, I'm also a soldier and I need to be prepared to complete all the tasks that could be asked of me on short notice and with great urgency. Can I be 500 lbs in a wheelchair and program a network? Yes, no problem. Can I be out of shape and help build my camp, run concertina wire, help with the defense of a camp, offload supplies from a truck or any other non-trade related task that may be assigned to me at any time? No.

Fitness level is a definite sign of your ability to adapt to mental stress and physical rigors that anyone in uniform can be called to at any time.

Your Warfare Director at any time could be required provide first aid or manually extract injuried personnel from his area in case of disaster or emergency. I'm not a sailor, but could he not be required to assist in a firefighting effort in his section of the boat in an emergency? The sailors I do know tell me that can be incredibly physically demanding. When your on shore you can be called to duty any time to provide assistance to domestic operations like during the icestorm, every year during the forest fire season, or during a flood.

As far as deciding between a slob that's good at their job and a fit person that's bad at their job, that's just a false binary statement. Can I be good at my job and be able to run 10 KM (which really should be trivial for anyone in the military)? Yes absolutely, it's a false dichotomy. I'd rather the slob that's good at their job start doing something, anything to improve their physical fitness. I mean, the FORCE test already is a joke of a standard, the vast majority can and should have no problem doing the lift and the shuttle in less than half the allotted time. Unless someone has a coordination mixup (forgetting to pick up your hands) they should have no problem with the rushes and be at least 10 seconds ahead. The drag, save those who are shorter and lighter, should be no problem as you're just walking backwards with weight. If you can't do that then you likely can't pull me out of danger if I'm in need of extraction. That's a concern. The fit guy should learn to do his job better.

Not only that, it's a dress and deportment issue. When I see people out in public in uniform with a belly that enters a room well before the head or a gut that hands well below the belt it's embarrassing that they're wearing the same uniform as me, and that they are negatively impacting the public's perception of the military by their lack of care for themselves.
 
"Fit" is a subjective standard.  It is a question of degree.

It's also a question of the military role of the individual.  Not every individual is sitting on or by their ruck, waiting to be called to do their military job.  Many are already employed in it, day to day, and already working long hours trying to keep up.  Should we close supply another hour each day so Sup Techs can spend time in the gym?  Should pay & claims be delayed so RMS clerks can do more crossfit?  Does that mean we increase the number of support personnel so they will be able to both complete their work and maintain a higher level of fitness?
 
BinRat55 said:
I think the most important "incentive" in keeping a soldier fit is a job. In my opinion we have the Universality of Service for a reason. This is like the baseline. We obviously want to be better than that, try harder and not go through our career on cruise control, but the UofS is still the basis of fitness - what every soldier in the CAF should be able to accomplish no matter what trade.

Now, just like Lumber said (by the way - waaay cool explanation on what you do) the different standards could be employed over and above depending on the trade. As long as the soldier meets the UofS. Either that, or raise the UofS criteria...

But circling back to my original statement - a job - well, we all know what happens when we can't meet the criteria of the UofS don't we? Those who want to serve with stay reasonably fit (the part of being fit that's in their control at least...)

Lumber's job is cool. Just want to say that again! Too bad you have to be on a ship over thousands of feet of water!!

If what you consider appropriate is achieving the bare minimum standard (in anything, job knowledge, education, physical fitness or even volunteering for secondary duties) then I don't see any issue with a PER reflecting your "good-enough" approach.

Right justified PERs are intended for those that strive for excellence.
 
dapaterson said:
"Fit" is a subjective standard.  It is a question of degree.

It's also a question of the military role of the individual.  Not every individual is sitting on or by their ruck, waiting to be called to do their military job.  Many are already employed in it, day to day, and already working long hours trying to keep up.  Should we close supply another hour each day so Sup Techs can spend time in the gym?  Should pay & claims be delayed so RMS clerks can do more crossfit?  Does that mean we increase the number of support personnel so they will be able to both complete their work and maintain a higher level of fitness?

Yes.

My current unit is about as operationally busy as you can find anywhere in the military, I believe we only lag behind CANSOFCOM in how many and how often we are deployed operationally. We are, by no means, sitting on our rucksacks. Our CoC makes fitness a priority because without it we would not be able to deploy the number of people we do in the roles we do. PT is mandated from the top levels down to the privates. 5 days a week, with the CO leading Friday PT most weeks.
 
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
Right justified PERs are intended for those that strive for excellence.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

Anybody ever heard the old latin dictum: Mens sana in corpore sano

Fit mind in a fit body: Can anyone argue that this is not something the military, of all people, should strive for?

Many years ago, I had to send about twenty of my sailors (including a Lt(N), two PO2 and one PO1) to assist in the Winnipeg flood. Their duties was boat handling, maintenance, and assistance with transport of sandbags. Do you think they could have done it as out-of-shape slobs? I don't think so. But even more important, when they came back one of them told me that the most important aspect of the military intervention he had noted while there was that whenever the military showed up at a location where sand bag walls were going up, our main contribution was pushing the civilians by example: When military showed up, we would simply work at the wall constantly, methodically and with stamina until the job was completed, and it motivated the civilians to do the same and not quit until it was done - regardless of exhaustion, boo-boos and other ills. 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

That's how the dots work.  Fitness isn't even one of them.  Do we add the caveat after every AF and PF, "Job knowledge, but only if one surpasses the minimum standard in fitness", "Written Communication, but only if one surpasses the minimum standard in fitness" ... etc etc etc


Ahhhh, CFJSR - loved that place!  Great posting it was.
 
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
Yes.

My current unit is about as operationally busy as you can find anywhere in the military, I believe we only lag behind CANSOFCOM in how many and how often we are deployed operationally. We are, by no means, sitting on our rucksacks. Our CoC makes fitness a priority because without it we would not be able to deploy the number of people we do in the roles we do. PT is mandated from the top levels down to the privates. 5 days a week, with the CO leading Friday PT most weeks.

Excellent! Please clone that and distribute widely.
 
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
Right justified PERs are intended for those that strive for excellence.

No.

Many strive for it.  If they cannot achieve it, though, then we may be rewarding mediocrity.  "Nice guy, tries hard" does not mean right justified.
 
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
If what you consider appropriate is achieving the bare minimum standard (in anything, job knowledge, education, physical fitness or even volunteering for secondary duties) then I don't see any issue with a PER reflecting your "good-enough" approach.

Right justified PERs are intended for those that strive for excellence.
What's the breakdown for the PER points? I understand how the Bronze-Platinum scale works for the Force Test.
 
ArmyVern said:
That's how the dots work.  Fitness isn't even one of them.  Do we add the caveat after every AF and PF, "Job knowledge, but only if one surpasses the minimum standard in fitness", "Written Communication, but only if one surpasses the minimum standard in fitness" ... etc etc etc

Not currently, but it looks like that's the intent with the new bronze, silver, gold and platinum levels. Not sure if there will be a different dot category, if it will be noted in the narrative (I doubt, since they've stressed it's the dots that count now) or if it will be additional points on national trade merit boards (outside of the PERs, kind of like how education or 2nd language scores factor in). They did say there will be "points" so not sure where they are allocated.

I think this is a good change nonetheless, but a little more info would be good.
 
Back
Top