Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[MilEME09]

I honestly wouldn't mind something like the American "up or out" albeit with competition dialed down a bit (we don't have the size to be as competitive as their system). But the cost to do something like this would be nuts.

The craziest system I heard of was from the Dutch. They compete for each posting. And if nobody picks you up at the end of the posting season? You're released.

Red rover extreme, would of solved a lot of our promote and post issues that lead to the wrong people in the wrong positions.

 

[quadrapiper]

I honestly wouldn't mind something like the American "up or out" albeit with competition dialed down a bit (we don't have the size to be as competitive as their system). But the cost to do something like this would be nuts.

The craziest system I heard of was from the Dutch. They compete for each posting. And if nobody picks you up at the end of the posting season? You're released.

Perhaps only starting "up or out" after a certain rank (maybe PO1 and LCdr?), and exempting certain trades and career paths entirely?

 

[KevinB]

One problem that exists down here is a dearth of depth of experience in many positions.

Snipers are one of the easiest examples, as in commonwealth militaries a lot of people can hang out for years in a sniper line serial and become very proficient at the trade. Down here the Sniper Team leader generally has less time in a sniper position than one of the shooter team member does in Canada, Britain etc.
It also leads to issues with marksmanship training as NCO’s are constantly moving up and the pipeline is pushing so much up the hill that only the surfaces of a lot of skills get taught.

There have been discussions about making more Warrant Officer positions for technical aspects, but the WO1-CWO5 positions aren’t designed to be leaders - the only real difference in that is the 180A SF Warrant positions that are Det 2i/c’s now that the second officer position was dropped - and often are Det Commanders due to Officer numbers.

 

[ytz]

Perhaps only starting "up or out" after a certain rank (maybe PO1 and LCdr?), and exempting certain trades and career paths entirely?

I would argue that there should be no Cpl and Captains for life. If you reach the end of your incentives, you should get two more years to promote and then you're out.

I'll fully admit, I would have gotten the boot under my own plan. But if my plan existed, I would have planned my career a lot differently.

I think having CFLs drives a whole lot of institutional laziness. We don't do mentorship well. We don't plan professional development well. We don't go all out to recruit and train across, because we know the CFLs will always fill the billets. We post problems away. They'll just be CFLs and become somebody else's problem every 2-3 years. Paradoxically, I think a plan like mine would force the institution to be better.

One problem that exists down here is a dearth of depth of experience in many positions.

Like I said. Not exactly the same. Call it "Up or out with Canadian/British characteristics".

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Perhaps this is more of an Army problem than the other elements?

I mean, in the RCAF, your Cpl for life Aerotech is possibly one of your best mechanic - little to no leadership capability, but he can find what is wrong with a turbine and fix it faster than anybody else. In the Navy, the good ol' "three badge AB" couldn't take charge of an evolution, but he could rig your jackstay at night, in Sea State 5 in the rain without any supervision and faster than a Wild West shooter. These type of very long service lower rank people are sometimes a godsend in more technical fields. And some times, it is all these people can achieve in life and they are quite satisfied doing it. So why should they be pushed out?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

never watch Instagram, in fact I don't go to restaurants and spend the meal looking at my cellphone either. I get my ideas from how people live by actually having conversations with them face to face. Try it some time. The loss of the dream is a direct result of the rampant consumerism that arose and that Trudeau represented. Spend and spend some more. The budget will balance itself. You want a SeaDoo? Buy one. Maxed out credit card; get another one. Every time people reach their credit limit some bank extends it some more. Houses don't need marble countertops and 3 bathrooms but try finding one without the bells and whistles that has been built in the last 20 years. No one wanted one so they didn't build them. So the prices went up. The kids today may not be able to find a place to live but that is partially due to their parents greed and their own unrealistic expectations. I lived in a 75 dollar basement room with a hotplate for 3 years and so did most of my generation. I worked summer jobs to pay tuition and again, that was the common thing to do. My neighbours used to employ 20 to 30 students a summer during harvest time for fruits. Now they bring in another dozen Jamaicans because the students won't work. I and many others here know far more about the world around us and what the root causes are than you may think

North Vancouver was a hard place when I grew up here, living in a flop house was not uncommon, there was a major recession when I entered the job market. Finding a good job was hard.
A good part of the reason housing in Vancouver is out of reach is because they opened up real estate to foreign buyers, which skewed it far beyond what local wages will sustain. The Municipalities won't do anything about it as they are addicted to the tax revenue.

 

[Furniture]

I think having CFLs drives a whole lot of institutional laziness. We don't do mentorship well. We don't plan professional development well. We don't go all out to recruit and train across, because we know the CFLs will always fill the billets. We post problems away. They'll just be CFLs and become somebody else's problem every 2-3 years. Paradoxically, I think a plan like mine would force the institution to be better.

I think this should be trade dependant, because one of the biggest issues in my occupation is people moving too fast. We need a lot more CFLs to round out our numbers, and mentor the new Techs coming up.

This is why pan-CAF solutions don't usually work. Each occupation has it's own issues, and one-size-fits-all solutions suck.

 

[daftandbarmy]

North Vancouver was a hard place when I grew up here, living in a flop house was not uncommon, there was a major recession when I entered the job market. Finding a good job was hard.
A good part of the reason housing in Vancouver is out of reach is because they opened up real estate to foreign buyers, which skewed it far beyond what local wages will sustain. The Municipalities won't do anything about it as they are addicted to the tax revenue.

Under the Volcano was written in a squatter's shack in my old neighbourhood. Later, those shacks were occupied by hippies.

I guess you could call it the 'good old days'

Malcolm Lowry: A Dollarton Legacy — North Shore Heritage Preservation Society

Dollarton’s Cates Park/Whey-ah-Whichen has been a North Shore forest and seaside escape since the 1950’s when squatters’ shacks were removed and the park established. Recently, amid sweltering temperatures, the park’s beaches were crowded with young people who had made their way there along the Malc

www.northshoreheritage.org

 

[YZT580]

different words same

North Vancouver was a hard place when I grew up here, living in a flop house was not uncommon, there was a major recession when I entered the job market. Finding a good job was hard.
A good part of the reason housing in Vancouver is out of reach is because they opened up real estate to foreign buyers, which skewed it far beyond what local wages will sustain. The Municipalities won't do anything about it as they are addicted to the tax revenue.

motive: greed

 

[ytz]

Perhaps this is more of an Army problem than the other elements?

I mean, in the RCAF, your Cpl for life Aerotech is possibly one of your best mechanic - little to no leadership capability, but he can find what is wrong with a turbine and fix it faster than anybody else. In the Navy, the good ol' "three badge AB" couldn't take charge of an evolution, but he could rig your jackstay at night, in Sea State 5 in the rain without any supervision and faster than a Wild West shooter. These type of very long service lower rank people are sometimes a godsend in more technical fields. And some times, it is all these people can achieve in life and they are quite satisfied doing it. So why should they be pushed out?

I think this should be trade dependant, because one of the biggest issues in my occupation is people moving too fast. We need a lot more CFLs to round out our numbers, and mentor the new Techs coming up.

This is why pan-CAF solutions don't usually work. Each occupation has it's own issues, and one-size-fits-all solutions suck.

There's always a certain percentage that are highly competent and eschew leadership. But there's also a lot of malingerers in that CFL group. I think the challenge is picking out the good ones. Like maybe "up or out" that retains some percentage as non-promotable specialists with strict recommendations from their chain and supervisors across various units.

I will say though, I find it less excusable on the officer side. We have people hogging practically every rank level. It results in leadership that is older, more risk averse and more out of touch.

Heck the whole concept of a senior captain is a bit crazy. If you're a Captain for 10 years you should be a Major. If you're not, there's something wrong with you, or your trade (see the ones that average promotions over 10 years in rank). Up or out would fix this pretty quick.

I like the new 360 leadership reviews. I think extending them down to Sgt and Maj would be highly informative on fixing a lot of poor leadership qualities.

 

[childs56]

I would argue that there should be no Cpl and Captains for life. If you reach the end of your incentives, you should get two more years to promote and then you're out.

So you are suggesting to get rid of your experienced Journeyman when they finally should become very well trained and competent in their field? That is assuming a person does three years as a Private, then gets promoted to Cpl on year four then by year 8 maxed out. By year ten if they have not been promoted they get the boot? Civi world a 4 year apprenticeship before your signed off in most trades, the learning continues but so does the experience to fix things or make thing work.
When there is only a one Mcpl spot and one Sgt spot per Section. it means loosing a lot of experience in a a very short time frame. I guess if it works it works. I would rather have a section of Cpls with 10 plus years who know the inside out of a airplane or how to perform a platoon attack then a section of green privates and one Experienced Mcpl.

 

[Furniture]

I will say though, I find it less excusable on the officer side. We have people hogging practically every rank level. It results in leadership that is older, more risk averse and more out of touch.

So you are suggesting to get rid of your experienced Journeyman when they finally should become very well trained and competent in their field?

I thnk you're both right.

At the leadership level, it should be an up or out, but at the actual journeyman level, people should be able to linger.

That there are 10 IPCs for Capts is an insult to NCMs. Yet every time I hear a senior person talk about pay and benefits, they start by looking at Captains...

 

[Good2Golf]

That there are 10 IPCs for Capts is an insult to NCMs. Yet every time I hear a senior person talk about pay and benefits, they start by looking at Captains…

It gets worse than that…for ‘specialist’ Captains like pilots, there are 20 IPCs. Regular Force pay by rank - Pilots

 

[Fabius]

I thnk you're both right.

At the leadership level, it should be an up or out, but at the actual journeyman level, people should be able to linger.

That there are 10 IPCs for Capts is an insult to NCMs. Yet every time I hear a senior person talk about pay and benefits, they start by looking at Captains...

Up and out would gut your leadership too.
The leadership in the CA is seeing their professional knowledge shrink and their professional skills erode.
Adding up and out to 2 year Command billets, 1 year postings etc. would likely make things worse.

In terms of CA Capts; what other rank has the same experience spread? 1st year DEO Capt in their first unit to a Capt with 14 years experience and is the unit Ops O with AOC and Cbt Tn Comd.

From Pte to WO, how many years does the Army intend for progression to the next rank to take on average?

The pilot scale also needs to account for the fact that those pilots are all likely hitting Capt while not being OFP and still needing 5 years to get to OFP. You could very well have 10 years in the training system currently. Then once in a SQN they are still very inexperienced and I would expect that you could make an argument that a pilot is a officer position that needs more technical knowledge than leadership (in an equivalent army sense) in the Capt rank. So is that pay for leadership or technical skill.

Just saying.

 

[FSTO]

What is remarkable, after what we have heard and put up with for the last decade or two, is the cast of characters and the words coming out of their mouths. You'd think they were born-again Albertans

The LPC have principles . But if you ask they have other principles on offer as well.

 

[OldSolduer]

Perhaps this is more of an Army problem than the other elements?

I mean, in the RCAF, your Cpl for life Aerotech is possibly one of your best mechanic - little to no leadership capability, but he can find what is wrong with a turbine and fix it faster than anybody else. In the Navy, the good ol' "three badge AB" couldn't take charge of an evolution, but he could rig your jackstay at night, in Sea State 5 in the rain without any supervision and faster than a Wild West shooter. These type of very long service lower rank people are sometimes a godsend in more technical fields. And some times, it is all these people can achieve in life and they are quite satisfied doing it. So why should they be pushed out?

FWIW the Army needs career cpls - the storesmen, drivers, etc may not be able to lead a section attack, but they are the corporate knowledge of a unit.

 

[YZT580]

The military, in general, is overly obsessed with rank. In a civilian organization, pay is associated with one's job description the military seems to pay more for time in than for any other reason. Why else would everyone with 4 years or more be a corporal whilst those with 3 years, same job, are privates? Your corporals, sergeants, and so on are positions of leadership and being a leader requires certain skills which should be identified in an individual and then taught. A failure to demonstrate those skills should result in termination. If, however, an individual demonstrates perfect competence at a particular level they should be permitted to remain at that level and thus serve as an encouragement to others entering the organisation: be it as a private or as a sergeant or whatever. There is no reason to dump a perfectly good junior officer or tradesman simply because they have reached their time.

When you enter the commissioned ranks however you cross into a different world with different expectations. These are the folks being cultivated to lead in the next war. They should not be allowed to simply occupy the rank but this is where our rank obsession begins to get in the way. A pilot for example doesn't really ever have to be anything but a pilot. If they are a competent, resourceful pilot and want to stay there than why not?nnIf they wish to train for squadron leadership positions that is where one should start running the clock. The same concept should govern naval officers. Good ship handlers are few and far between. When one is found they should be able to stay a ship handler if that is their desire. My thoughts anyways

 

[daftandbarmy]

The military, in general, is overly obsessed with rank. In a civilian organization, pay is associated with one's job description the military seems to pay more for time in than for any other reason. Why else would everyone with 4 years or more be a corporal whilst those with 3 years, same job, are privates? Your corporals, sergeants, and so on are positions of leadership and being a leader requires certain skills which should be identified in an individual and then taught. A failure to demonstrate those skills should result in termination. If, however, an individual demonstrates perfect competence at a particular level they should be permitted to remain at that level and thus serve as an encouragement to others entering the organisation: be it as a private or as a sergeant or whatever. There is no reason to dump a perfectly good junior officer or tradesman simply because they have reached their time.

When you enter the commissioned ranks however you cross into a different world with different expectations. These are the folks being cultivated to lead in the next war. They should not be allowed to simply occupy the rank but this is where our rank obsession begins to get in the way. A pilot for example doesn't really ever have to be anything but a pilot. If they are a competent, resourceful pilot and want to stay there than why not?nnIf they wish to train for squadron leadership positions that is where one should start running the clock. The same concept should govern naval officers. Good ship handlers are few and far between. When one is found they should be able to stay a ship handler if that is their desire. My thoughts anyways

So, bring back 'Sergeant Pilots' like during WW2 then?

 

[YZT580]

So, bring back 'Sergeant Pilots' like during WW2 then?

or simply call everyone but the squadron leader "Pilot NR (no rank). For a/c types requiring 2 pilots your co-pilot is a pilot in training. If he fails to qualify left seat he is out. A qualified seaman is simply a seaman or a seaman class one. Rank starts with the PO whilst a newbie is a seaman class two. Pay is based on years in maxing out in 10 for pension purposes but every person beyond 10 years receives an annual bonus of 1 year increase times the number of years beyond 10.

 

[GR66]

The military, in general, is overly obsessed with rank. In a civilian organization, pay is associated with one's job description the military seems to pay more for time in than for any other reason. Why else would everyone with 4 years or more be a corporal whilst those with 3 years, same job, are privates? Your corporals, sergeants, and so on are positions of leadership and being a leader requires certain skills which should be identified in an individual and then taught. A failure to demonstrate those skills should result in termination. If, however, an individual demonstrates perfect competence at a particular level they should be permitted to remain at that level and thus serve as an encouragement to others entering the organisation: be it as a private or as a sergeant or whatever. There is no reason to dump a perfectly good junior officer or tradesman simply because they have reached their time.

When you enter the commissioned ranks however you cross into a different world with different expectations. These are the folks being cultivated to lead in the next war. They should not be allowed to simply occupy the rank but this is where our rank obsession begins to get in the way. A pilot for example doesn't really ever have to be anything but a pilot. If they are a competent, resourceful pilot and want to stay there than why not?nnIf they wish to train for squadron leadership positions that is where one should start running the clock. The same concept should govern naval officers. Good ship handlers are few and far between. When one is found they should be able to stay a ship handler if that is their desire. My thoughts anyways

The thing you need to be careful about is being sure you don't swing too far the other way in hanging on to your "career corporals" because they are good at what they do. While you don't want to lose experience and skill you do also need a steady flow of "new blood" in any trade. Last thing you want is to end up like some skilled trades where all the experienced people that have been filling the jobs for decades are retiring and there aren't enough young tradesmen to fill their places.