Remustering out of combat arms, into a spec trade, should be an incentive on it's own.
The PRes is already objectively quite well paid. In terms of pay and benefits it’s already a very competitive job prospect for young students, particularly given the effectively guaranteed full time summer employment and the seamless transition back to part time during the school year. While better education funding would of course help, increasing PRes recruiting and retention is at this point more a matter (I believe) of locating PRes units in more areas and more locally to newer communities, and simply offering more realistic and quality training- the ‘army shit’ that the kids in their late teens and early twenties want to show up and actually do.
It isn't that difficult to do. What the problem is that it isn't getting enough light at the right levels of the two departments and Treasury Board to make it an issue that they will work on to fix.
Seeing as it is a pretty new benefit it can be changed as needed. It also isn’t a benefit for CAF members, it is a benefit for former CAF members, a distinct difference.
My point isnt so much that it needs to be torn down, it's more that once the idea to change it comes up, there is strong potential for a very handy programme to become a gong show like the NVC.It isn't that difficult to do. What the problem is that it isn't getting enough light at the right levels of the two departments and Treasury Board to make it an issue that they will work on to fix.
Calling it a complete tear down is overstating the problem. @brihard's suggestion is one way to accept the concept that a RegF member going to the ResF is in fact a transition to civvy life with a continued obligation and value to the CAF.
I can think of a dozen ways to incentivize education benefits as a means to encourage RegF members to willingly transfer to the ARes within the current funding model. I'm sure most of us here can too. The problem is that it isn't a big enough issue at all to get the attention it needs at the top. Maybe now that the thought is to try to expand the reserves it will.
It isn't that difficult to do. What the problem is that it isn't getting enough light at the right levels of the two departments and Treasury Board to make it an issue that they will work on to fix.
Calling it a complete tear down is overstating the problem. @brihard's suggestion is one way to accept the concept that a RegF member going to the ResF is in fact a transition to civvy life with a continued obligation and value to the CAF.
I can think of a dozen ways to incentivize education benefits as a means to encourage RegF members to willingly transfer to the ARes within the current funding model. I'm sure most of us here can too. The problem is that it isn't a big enough issue at all to get the attention it needs at the top. Maybe now that the thought is to try to expand the reserves it will.
I don't disagree that this might happen. But that's a negative way of looking at it. I guess that I'm more of a "glass half full" type of guy.
New Veterans Charter.I don't disagree that this might happen. But that's a negative way of looking at it. I guess that I'm more of a "glass half full" type of guy.
NVC?
It does.
I do too as long as they are in population centres that can support a viable unit. Many of the areas in Toronto are underserved with the amin armouries still clustered around the core while the population has spread far and wide.
These satellite platoons are hard to run and administer. The ARE actually has a concept for doing that through what are called "Independent Mission Element Administrative Support Cadre" (IMEASC) and "Detached Mission Element Administrative Support Cadre" (DMEASC). Most ARes units have an allocated establishment of roughly 40 some odd folks as the unit HQ and Svcs company. Very small units get a greatly reduced IMEASC as their headquarters (e.g. the SaskD or 116 Ind Fd Bty) while larger units with a sub-unit located at a distance from them get an DDMEASC which provides some additional manning to administer that subunit (such as 38 CER with a squadron in Winnipeg and another in Saskatoon)
We did that from time to time. It's actually easier under the ARE as there are a number of ATR positions on the establishments that can be filled by "visiting strangers."
That's a bigger and much more complex issue and I really don't see the benefit unless your aim is simply to have folks who are trained in the basic skills and only let out to do simple things like annual reclassifications or common to all stuff. By now you know that I favour the moving of the yardsticks to creating units with at least sub-unit collective training skills. That would be hard, but not impossible, to achieve. The question is whether the extra administrative burden is worth the effort. I'm not a fan of catering to everyone's particular preferences.
I do too as long as they are in population centres that can support a viable unit. Many of the areas in Toronto are underserved with the amin armouries still clustered around the core while the population has spread far and wide.
These satellite platoons are hard to run and administer. The ARE actually has a concept for doing that through what are called "Independent Mission Element Administrative Support Cadre" (IMEASC) and "Detached Mission Element Administrative Support Cadre" (DMEASC). Most ARes units have an allocated establishment of roughly 40 some odd folks as the unit HQ and Svcs company. Very small units get a greatly reduced IMEASC as their headquarters (e.g. the SaskD or 116 Ind Fd Bty) while larger units with a sub-unit located at a distance from them get an DDMEASC which provides some additional manning to administer that subunit (such as 38 CER with a squadron in Winnipeg and another in Saskatoon)
The problem was one I had troubles with in 26 Fd Regt in Brandon in the late 70s. We already had a battery in Portage La Prairie (about 130 km east) which was already underperforming dramatically notwithstanding I had a RegF WO there to manage it, but the regiment was keen on setting up a troop in Dauphin (about a 170 kms north) where they had about a half dozen folks and where they left a panel van to bring them down for weekly parades and exercises. It was an absolute shit show and took up more administrative time and effort than the damn pipe band.
We did that from time to time. It's actually easier under the ARE as there are a number of ATR positions on the establishments that can be filled by "visiting strangers."
That's a bigger and much more complex issue and I really don't see the benefit unless your aim is simply to have folks who are trained in the basic skills and only let out to do simple things like annual reclassifications or common to all stuff. By now you know that I favour the moving of the yardsticks to creating units with at least sub-unit collective training skills. That would be hard, but not impossible, to achieve. The question is whether the extra administrative burden is worth the effort. I'm not a fan of catering to everyone's particular preferences.
