CIC And PRes

[aesop081]

Now if the CDS says he doesn't want CIC officers working with the PRes, then that's the way it is.

Are we done yet ?

 

[yoman]

: : : : :

I doubt very much that it is because the CDS 'does not want' CIC officer to train with the PRes or Regs.

I suspect very much that it is because he knows that the CIC is not capable of filling that role and has made this new rule to ensure that it does not happen, period.

He does not want CIC officers to train with them for this reason "he knows that the CIC is not capable of filling that role and has made this new rule to ensure that it does not happen."

He know's that CIC do not have the training to operate with the reg force/PRes.

Are we done yet ?

I hope so.

 

[Sloaner]

Perfect timing Kyle, I was about to PM you.

I think the facts we all need to understand are these:
-CIC are a non-operational trade
-CIC officers CANNOT be immediately be called into active service
-CIC officers DO NOT have the requisite TRAINING/QUALIFICATIONS to take on operational roles or lead those in them
-In the past, exceptions were made for whatever reasons, and the avenues for these exceptions have been effectively closed

The above do not mean a CIC officer is completely incapable of leading personnel in the combat arms based on individual competence, but recorgnizes that they are not immediately ready to adhere to the requirements of universality of service as a broad category of the reserve force.  The CIC are still military, but not Combat Arms and cannot be employed as such without significant re-training.  CIC officers can, when required or appointed to do so, exercise authority over other ranks like any other officer, however they are rarely put in a position for this to be a requirement.

The future is clearly laid out in the 5 Mandates 5 Branches documentation available from several sources, but most appropriately:

http://www.cadets.ca/support/or/intro_e.asp#man-comp

The orders and regulations required are to be amended, and a seperate set of standards applied to the CIC to stop the continual number of exceptions and deviations from normal rules and regulations for the rest of the reserve force.  This should be our base line until all other orders are completed and issued. 

Perhaps you could include the 5 mandates discussion as a sticky so we don't delve into this again.

 

[Trinity]

I think the statement of the CDS has been taken WAY out of proportion.

This has nothing to do with the competency of the CIC officers.  This is
not trying to punish the CIC officers in anyway or limit their employment.

This has to do with PRes and Reg force officers.  What has happened
in the past is that due to age one is forced to retire from the Pres and Reg force.
HOWEVER, since you can still be a CIC officer for more years (65?) many officers
were simply going to the CIC as a way to get back in and then taking class b or C
positions in their old jobs or similar fields.

This has many detriments
a) receiving pension and getting paid for new job (costly)
b) creates fewer openings for others to come up and learn
c) many of these officers never actually work in the CIC but just wear the badge


This was a loophole that was being used by some officers to continue their career
when retirement was required.  It has nothing to do with  CIC officers or their training.

This was explained to me by someone last year... so unfortunately I cannot verify this
however, it seems to be a valid explanation for this rule... much more so than speculation
on CIC officer qualifications. 

 

[rwgill]

c) many of these officers never actually work in the CIC but just wear the badge

In some cases a person was CIC, but only on paper.  The accoutrements were never changed.

From personal experience, the great majority of CIC officers working outside the normal CIC domain were hired in administrative roles at the HQ levels, hidden in the maze of hallways, in a dark closet.  Usually because no one else is readily available, who may be better trained.

In one specific case, a Class B oppurtunity arose at NDHQ and the only person who applied AND was qualified (education) was a CIC officer.  She held that position for 6 years without competition.

A CIC officer was also a member of the SkyHawks, obviously not in the CIC domain.

In general, you will rarely see a CIC officer employed outside of the Cadet World.  As Sloaner pointed out, all avenues have effectively been closed, in the CANFORGEN, and when the NDA is amended, perhaps for good.

The unfortunate truth is, it still happens, but extremely rare.

Some CIC officers, whom I aware of, have transfered.  One wears the Infantry Branch badge because he has no unit. 

Others are waiting out the storm.

 

[Neill McKay]

The unfortunate truth is, it still happens, but extremely rare.

I'm not sure why it's so unfortunate.  If a CIC officer has the skill set required for a particular job, why should the Service not take advantage?  I don't see the harm in it, in cases such as the one described above.

I do agree with closing off the CIC as a so-called cap badge of convenience for personnel who want to circumvent HR policies, and concur that that is almost certainly what motivated the CANFORGEN we're discussing.

 

[geo]

If said CIC officer is interested in taking up full time occupation with the CF - then maybe said CIC officer should take phase training and become a Pres or Reg officer...

(they can then volunteer their time to the cadet movement)

 

[Neill McKay]

If said CIC officer is interested in taking up full time occupation with the CF - then maybe said CIC officer should take phase training and become a Pres or Reg officer...

Let me turn it around, then: if a position can be adequately staffed by a CIC officer, does it make sense to employ another officer whose training was much more expensive and whose specialized MOSID-specific skills could perhaps used elsewhere?  CIC officers are by far the best bargain in the Service.

On the broader subject of CIC officers serving full-time, there are quite a few of them in various area and regional headquarters, and NDHQ, working in support of the cadet programme.  (Some will be shocked to hear that many such officers supervise reg. force members.)

 

[dapaterson]

Let me turn it around, then: if a position can be adequately staffed by a CIC officer, does it make sense to employ another officer whose training was much more expensive and whose specialized MOSID-specific skills could perhaps used elsewhere?  CIC officers are by far the best bargain in the Service.

There's an even cheaper bargain around - they're called civilians.  If a function requires little to no military background or training, civilians are more than capable of meeting that need.

 

[Neill McKay]

There's an even cheaper bargain around - they're called civilians.  If a function requires little to no military background or training, civilians are more than capable of meeting that need.

Yes, and we employ quite a few of them.  I hope you're not suggesting that a CIC officer is equivalent to a civilian, though.

 

[dapaterson]

Not at all.  I'm saying that if military training is not a requirement, why put someone in uniform in that chair at all?

 

[Sloaner]

Good point, but the unions are a B*tch.  Civies tend to be a bit more expensive too if they are FTE's.  Contractors or terms, is possible, just depends on the nature and tenure of the work I guess.

 

[youravatar]

It was never my intention to spark a huge debate  :. Why'd the topic get unlocked?

 

[rwgill]

Not at all.  I'm saying that if military training is not a requirement, why put someone in uniform in that chair at all?

One word, U-N-I-O-N.

 

[dapaterson]

Not a valid reason at all.  There are some HR challenges in managing members of the public service, but military pers management is even more of an arcane art, poorly executed by most; is that a reason to elminiate military personnel from consideration?

Civilians are cheaper than military pers, by and large.  There is however a military (and largely Army and Navy ) bias against civilians holding positions within the hierarchy.  Thus, instead of developing long-term corporate expertise and knowledge through effective management of a civilian workforce, we engage in a game of military musical chairs, where pers get posted into a position for just enough time to gain enough experience to become effective, and then, when they are on the cusp of true utility, posting them elsewhere.

There are valid reasons to employ military (Reg or Res, PRes or CIC or Ranger) pers, and valid reasons to emply civ pers within any military organization.  Military pers are a very limited resource; structures should make optimal use of all personnel available, regardless of whether they wear a uniform.

 

[Burrows]

Language - watch it.  Swearing in the cadet forums is NOT TOLERATED.

Keep the debate civil and to FACTS or it will be locked again.