Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There is a HR org with ample data and ongoing research within DND already. Headed by a defence scientist.

@FJAG HQ Bloat ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

He was being sarcastic. You forgot to put your joke scoop on this morning as it sailed over your head.

@dapaterson is always serious

 

[KevinB]

Wisdom degrades. Times move on.

Much like experience, the longer one is away from them coal face the less that experience, or wisdom, is worth.

Its hard, and important, for people to realize when its time to step back, and recognize their input is out of touch.

Especially when it comes to an organization like the CAF where people care so deeply and emotionally about it.

I don’t disagree.

But (yeah I know you are thinking here he goes again).

I think the CAF rank structure (and most militaries) is out of date with the times.
It needs a significant relook to reevaluate positions and rank/appointment’s to those positions.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t disagree.

But (yeah I know you are thinking here he goes again).

I think the CAF rank structure (and most militaries) is out of date with the times.
It needs a significant relook to reevaluate positions and rank/appointment’s to those positions.

I agree that our rank structure is out of date.

But I also support ending the monarchy and massive electoral reform. Its the Irish rebel in me.

 

[QV]

Agreed.


Feedback is a gift.

Everyone hates “Yes, but..” answers, but I’ll give one anyway.

I agree with the fact most of us are older, but with age there is (hopefully) wisdom and experience. CAF pay and benefits are pretty good, and clearly better than when most of us where PTE(R) or OCdt’s. The problem with salaries is everyone always wants more, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but there is only so much $ to go around.

The CAF pay raises (while tied to the PS these days) have created a bit of a bottleneck in that the young PTE’s and Junior Officers come in substantially higher than before, so the jumps aren’t as significant. I remember as a PTE(3) making more than double the PTE(T)’s who just finished BattleSchool, and the jumps from PTE(R) to PTE(B) to PTE(T) where also significant.
Now no one paid for R&Q until you got to BN, so the pay rates where not awful IF you where single. More older people entering the CAF or those with dependents struggled hard with the pay. As opposed to folks like me who went and bought TV’s Stereo’s and new vehicles (and a lot of liquor, beer etc)

Everyone also had to live for at least 1 year in barracks when getting to BN (unless married and they got PMQ’s).

It was a fairly stable system, even though the shacks generally sucked, but the old shacks had another benefit, as the Rifle Coy’s where in the basement so the weapons vaults where right there as well as Platoon offices and platoon stores/common room.
- the Gunners, Armoured and Engineers, as well as Cbt Spt Coy had lines in separate areas - but for Morning Pt all the shack dwellers needed to do was pop out of bed and walk out to the parade squares. (This was common for Calgary, Edmonton, Petawawa, Valcartier, Gagetown, Winnipeg, and IIRC Shilo but don’t quote me).
So one didn’t really need a vehicle when getting to ones unit unless one was in a PMQ. (The Jr Officers usually had a bit of a hike in the morning’s, and it wasn’t uncommon for many of the junior ones to shower in the barracks after PT as opposed to walking back to their quarters).

Cpl was a pretty sweet pay raise then as well, and M/Cpl and Sgt where as well.

Now the bottom starts much higher, and as I understand there is no PTE(R) (B) or (T) so their are less jumps for NCM’s and the jumps aren’t as significant as before.

The same goes for the officer trades where it seems folks can hit Captain at OFP

I’d suggest that this whole debacle could have been avoided, I’m not sure if the blame can go all the way back to Unification with the change from Cpl as the Section Commander and the LCpl being the one hook - but the removal of the earlier rank incentives has caused inflated lower rank pay that then doesn’t get corrected by increases in rank or incentives like what occurred before.

I think for NCM’s the creation of a T-Sgt rank for SME positions that might otherwise sit at Cpl could help (similar to the WO scheme down here). You could have 15 pay incentives in that ‘rank’ or even sub categories for certain tech fields to make them comparable or attractive compared to Civilian jobs.

I've argued in the past the CAF needs to recruit young. The CAF should be recruiting primarily people that are 17-24, with a few outliers but 28 should be the ceiling. This keeps them mobile, flexible, and the lower pay can sustain them easily until they advance in time and rank. They can be posted practically anywhere and be easily housed in the shacks through the training system and after. Recruiting old people at the entry level who have families and life obligations causes all kinds of wrinkles and puts extra pressure on the system and those without the baggage.

Bottom line, the CAF needs a young, fit, and energetic base of soldiers. They can be put to work and are more resilient. Recruiting a 35 or 40 year old is detrimental.

Roughly my ideal age range for an infantry platoon:

Pte: 18-22
Cpl: 20-24
MCpl: 21-26
Sgt: 25-30
WO: 28-35
2Lt/Lt: 20-24

 

[Halifax Tar]

I've argued in the past the CAF needs to recruit young. The CAF should be recruiting primarily people that are 17-24, with a few outliers but 28 should be the ceiling. This keeps them mobile, flexible, and the lower pay can sustain them easily until they advance in time and rank. They can be posted practically anywhere and be easily housed in the shacks through the training system and after. Recruiting old people at the entry level who have families and life obligations causes all kinds of wrinkles and puts extra pressure on the system and those without the baggage.

Bottom line, the CAF needs a young, fit, and energetic base of soldiers. They can be put to work and are more resilient. Recruiting a 35 or 40 year old is detrimental.

Roughly my ideal age range for an infantry platoon:

Pte: 18-22
Cpl: 20-24
MCpl: 21-26
Sgt: 25-30
WO: 28-35
2Lt/Lt: 20-24

The CAF is not an infantry platoon.

Infact that's mightily small part of the CAF.

But I see your point in general.

 

[KevinB]

The CAF is not an infantry platoon.

In fact that's mightily small part of the CAF.

But the rank structure is setup pretty much like everyone is, or a Ship of the Line from the days of old...

But I see your point in general.

It is that rebel again

 

[Quirky]

Like in about half a millium?

I mean the ultimate solution would be for each base to have adequate housing for all members and their families. Then make it free. Call it the cost of doing business.

I'd also like to point out that the demographic on this site putting down increased pay is older, established/retired members, who are perhaps out of touch with the reality on the shop/hangar floor right now.

I'm not too far detached from the floor and if you look at salary, for the air tech trades anyway since I can't comment on all trades, it's actually very generous for the work completed compared to civilian counterparts. It's when you add the military aspect, moving, job dissatisfaction for whatever reason, you feel like you're underpaid. People need to read through the maintenance section of Avcanada forums, it's not all roses and sunshine on the other side.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CAF is not an infantry platoon.

Infact that's mightily small part of the CAF.

But I see your point in general.

Working with the USCG I noted they were all much younger than the CCG. I think there are advantages to trying to recruit young, which with good supervision will outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[Remius]

I'm not too far detached from the floor and if you look at salary, for the air tech trades anyway since I can't comment on all trades, it's actually very generous for the work completed compared to civilian counterparts. It's when you add the military aspect, moving, job dissatisfaction for whatever reason, you feel like you're underpaid. People need to read through the maintenance section of Avcanada forums, it's not all roses and sunshine on the other side.

Voila.

 

[DBNSG]

it's actually very generous for the work completed compared to civilian counterparts. It's when you add the military aspect, moving, job dissatisfaction for whatever reason, you feel like you're underpaid. People need to read through the maintenance section of Avcanada forums, it's not all roses and sunshine on the other side.

I flew to Toronto a couple of years back and the A/C was diverted to Hamilton for reasons never explained. So as we sat there stranded My seatmate and I struck up a conversation as to why we were both there. Turns out he was a senior Air Canada Engineer flying from Halifax to Toronto for his four day shift of 12 on 12 off. He shared a Toronto address with three other Vancouver based Engineers that shared the same Schedule. They were all qualified as among the few Engineers to fix the New Boeings that Air Canada was onboarding. Too expensive to actually live in Toronto but the Company gave cheap flights for the guys to go to Work and helped the rental of the Toronto house. My Seatmate was Mortgage free back in Enfield but would never move to TO.

 

[FJAG]

I actually agree with you here. The problem now is we have such a structure built around this with families subsiding off it, how do you do the drastic change at this point ?

I will tell you a good Cpl who knows how to get things done is worth their weight in gold. Probably the most important person in a section is that Cpl that becomes the focal point of the section and makes everything happen.

We're looking at two issues: rank as a sign of leadership and rank as a vehicle for compensation. IMHO one shouldn't muddle the two.

The fact is we do muddle the two. On the leadership side, back in the day, corporals ran infantry rifle sections (roughly 10-11 folks). They still do in today's British army. But OTOH, a sergeant ran an artillery gun detachment (7 folks). And so it is in the British army of today as well. I never understood that. Running a rifle section was no less complex or challenging than running a gun.

It gets sillier when you look at the US. A rifle squad - the equivalent of a Cdn rifle section - is run by a staff sergeant who has two sergeants under him - one to lead each of the squad's two four-man teams. At least here there is some equality because an American howitzer section (i.e. a single gun) is commanded by a staff sergeant who has one sergeant as the gun's "gunner" and another as the ammo team chief.

When you look at that US establishment for an M109 battery or the rifle company, you won't find a corporal. Those below the rank of sergeant are either privates first class or specialists. The specialist rank is the Americans' way of distinguishing folks who have time in, learned specific skills and are provided with more pay but who aren't in a leadership role. Both corporals and specialist are in the E-4 pay grade but a corporal is senior in rank to a specialist. I've tried to find well accepted role for a corporal and it seems more than anything its a position along the way to sergeant rank and to fill small team leadership roles. Basically, promotion to E-4 requires 24 months of service and 6 month in the grade of PFC and are pretty much automatic. Promotion to E-5 sergeant is 36 months of service, 12 months in grade as an E-4 and an NCO development course and promotion to an E-6 Staff Sergeant requires 48 months of service, 24 months in grade as an E-5. Both are competitive army wide.

All that to say that this whole rank level thing is very fluid. I have to question my own reaction to the post-unification automatic corporal / MCpl as the first leader situation within the frame of my own British military heritage that was inculcated in me when I was a young sprout. I prefer it but can't justify it.

That brings us to @dapaterson's "Unpopular opinion: Cpl should not be upper middle class pay rates." I tend to agree. But that's based on my opinion that civil service pay rates, including their benefits, are too high across the board and do not match that of the general civilian population. By linkage to civil service pay it follows that military pay is too high. And yes, I know there are constant assessments on that very topic within government - I just don't believe them based on having worked for a living for quite some time now and seen what constitutes pay allocation within the civil sector. Within the civilian sector - especially non union sector - pay is much more linked to performance and value to the company's bottom line. Government has no bottom lines.

Middle class income runs somewhere around $53,000 - $106,000 per year. Upper middle class comes above $106,000. Average Cdn income varies by province from $46,000 to $70,000+ per year. The CAF essentially starts paying a private at just below middle class income the first year but near average income for most provinces. From there it moves up rapidly so that by their fourth years they are squarely within middle class and well above average. I think we need to recognize that the military is part of society and needs to be closer aligned with it's financial situation. I find the pay differences between corporals and the next two levels where leadership starts (MCpl and Sgt) to be too small considering the levels of responsibility. I think pay needs to start lower and take longer to rise so that once leadership roles are achieved there is a clear recognition of that.

@FJAG HQ Bloat ?

Don't know there scope or cost. Maybe?

 

[Furniture]

We're looking at two issues: rank as a sign of leadership and rank as a vehicle for compensation. IMHO one shouldn't muddle the two.

The fact is we do muddle the two. On the leadership side, back in the day, corporals ran infantry rifle sections (roughly 10-11 folks). They still do in today's British army. But OTOH, a sergeant ran an artillery gun detachment (7 folks). And so it is in the British army of today as well. I never understood that. Running a rifle section was no less complex or challenging than running a gun.

It gets sillier when you look at the US. A rifle squad - the equivalent of a Cdn rifle section - is run by a staff sergeant who has two sergeants under him - one to lead each of the squad's two four-man teams. At least here there is some equality because an American howitzer section (i.e. a single gun) is commanded by a staff sergeant who has one sergeant as the gun's "gunner" and another as the ammo team chief.

When you look at that US establishment for an M109 battery or the rifle company, you won't find a corporal. Those below the rank of sergeant are either privates first class or specialists. The specialist rank is the Americans' way of distinguishing folks who have time in, learned specific skills and are provided with more pay but who aren't in a leadership role. Both corporals and specialist are in the E-4 pay grade but a corporal is senior in rank to a specialist. I've tried to find well accepted role for a corporal and it seems more than anything its a position along the way to sergeant rank and to fill small team leadership roles. Basically, promotion to E-4 requires 24 months of service and 6 month in the grade of PFC and are pretty much automatic. Promotion to E-5 sergeant is 36 months of service, 12 months in grade as an E-4 and an NCO development course and promotion to an E-6 Staff Sergeant requires 48 months of service, 24 months in grade as an E-5. Both are competitive army wide.

All that to say that this whole rank level thing is very fluid. I have to question my own reaction to the post-unification automatic corporal / MCpl as the first leader situation within the frame of my own British military heritage that was inculcated in me when I was a young sprout. I prefer it but can't justify it.

That brings us to @dapaterson's "Unpopular opinion: Cpl should not be upper middle class pay rates." I tend to agree. But that's based on my opinion that civil service pay rates, including their benefits, are too high across the board and do not match that of the general civilian population. By linkage to civil service pay it follows that military pay is too high. And yes, I know there are constant assessments on that very topic within government - I just don't believe them based on having worked for a living for quite some time now and seen what constitutes pay allocation within the civil sector. Within the civilian sector - especially non union sector - pay is much more linked to performance and value to the company's bottom line. Government has no bottom lines.

Middle class income runs somewhere around $53,000 - $106,000 per year. Upper middle class comes above $106,000. Average Cdn income varies by province from $46,000 to $70,000+ per year. The CAF essentially starts paying a private at just below middle class income the first year but near average income for most provinces. From there it moves up rapidly so that by their fourth years they are squarely within middle class and well above average. I think we need to recognize that the military is part of society and needs to be closer aligned with it's financial situation. I find the pay differences between corporals and the next two levels where leadership starts (MCpl and Sgt) to be too small considering the levels of responsibility. I think pay needs to start lower and take longer to rise so that once leadership roles are achieved there is a clear recognition of that.

Don't know there scope or cost. Maybe?

I think in an ideal world this makes sense. Unfortunately, even with middle class pay we can't attract and retain enough of the right people.

Offering solutions that pay less is not going to do anything short of make the death spiral a death nosedive.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We're looking at two issues: rank as a sign of leadership and rank as a vehicle for compensation. IMHO one shouldn't muddle the two.

The fact is we do muddle the two. On the leadership side, back in the day, corporals ran infantry rifle sections (roughly 10-11 folks). They still do in today's British army. But OTOH, a sergeant ran an artillery gun detachment (7 folks). And so it is in the British army of today as well. I never understood that. Running a rifle section was no less complex or challenging than running a gun.

It gets sillier when you look at the US. A rifle squad - the equivalent of a Cdn rifle section - is run by a staff sergeant who has two sergeants under him - one to lead each of the squad's two four-man teams. At least here there is some equality because an American howitzer section (i.e. a single gun) is commanded by a staff sergeant who has one sergeant as the gun's "gunner" and another as the ammo team chief.

When you look at that US establishment for an M109 battery or the rifle company, you won't find a corporal. Those below the rank of sergeant are either privates first class or specialists. The specialist rank is the Americans' way of distinguishing folks who have time in, learned specific skills and are provided with more pay but who aren't in a leadership role. Both corporals and specialist are in the E-4 pay grade but a corporal is senior in rank to a specialist. I've tried to find well accepted role for a corporal and it seems more than anything its a position along the way to sergeant rank and to fill small team leadership roles. Basically, promotion to E-4 requires 24 months of service and 6 month in the grade of PFC and are pretty much automatic. Promotion to E-5 sergeant is 36 months of service, 12 months in grade as an E-4 and an NCO development course and promotion to an E-6 Staff Sergeant requires 48 months of service, 24 months in grade as an E-5. Both are competitive army wide.

All that to say that this whole rank level thing is very fluid. I have to question my own reaction to the post-unification automatic corporal / MCpl as the first leader situation within the frame of my own British military heritage that was inculcated in me when I was a young sprout. I prefer it but can't justify it.

That brings us to @dapaterson's "Unpopular opinion: Cpl should not be upper middle class pay rates." I tend to agree. But that's based on my opinion that civil service pay rates, including their benefits, are too high across the board and do not match that of the general civilian population. By linkage to civil service pay it follows that military pay is too high. And yes, I know there are constant assessments on that very topic within government - I just don't believe them based on having worked for a living for quite some time now and seen what constitutes pay allocation within the civil sector. Within the civilian sector - especially non union sector - pay is much more linked to performance and value to the company's bottom line. Government has no bottom lines.

Middle class income runs somewhere around $53,000 - $106,000 per year. Upper middle class comes above $106,000. Average Cdn income varies by province from $46,000 to $70,000+ per year. The CAF essentially starts paying a private at just below middle class income the first year but near average income for most provinces. From there it moves up rapidly so that by their fourth years they are squarely within middle class and well above average. I think we need to recognize that the military is part of society and needs to be closer aligned with it's financial situation. I find the pay differences between corporals and the next two levels where leadership starts (MCpl and Sgt) to be too small considering the levels of responsibility. I think pay needs to start lower and take longer to rise so that once leadership roles are achieved there is a clear recognition of that.

Don't know there scope or cost. Maybe?

How do you propose to make any changes ?

 

[MilEME09]

In buy Canadian steel news

Algoma Steel aims to supply steel to rebuild Canada’s navy

Ontario Shipyards announced this week that Algoma Steel is joining a group that wants to lead the effort to build Canada's next generation of warships.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[FJAG]

I think in an ideal world this makes sense. Unfortunately, even with middle class pay we can't attract and retain enough of the right people.

Offering solutions that pay less is not going to do anything short of make the death spiral a death nosedive.

I'm aware that many think that. And in a profession that needs long term professionals as the backbone I can see where many see the risk.

I tend to think that much of the CAF can have a higher turnover rate (the fresh blood theory) - especially in the army combat trades. For certain technical trades the 'return on investment' time frame needs to be longer. That requires a strong recruiting system, initial training system and incentives to get people in the door and to keep those who are particulalry attractive to stay longer. I tend to think we tend to keep too many people beyond their best before dates and do so at very high salaries.

I totally agree that we need to retain the "right" people. And the system should be built to target that. Unfortunately we keep too many of the "wrong" people which in several ways is a disincentive for the "right" people staying. I too agree that a highly skilled tech is worth his weight in gold. Unfortunately, unless he's also a good leader there is little incentive to stay as he maxes out on incentives. OTOH a good tech without leadership capabilities who is promoted in order to reward him financially can very quickly become a problem for his subordinates. We tend to push people into Peter principle situations. Let's face it in a CAF of roughly 62,000 full-time positions, where only 24,000 are cpls and ptes and the other 38,000 from MCpl on up are leaders/supervisors, we're bound to have a lot of plugs if everyone is destined for and invited to stay for a 20+ year career.

How do you propose to make any changes ?

I see several concepts that could facilitate change:

1) for starters, you can't role back pay. That means you can only build a greater pay gap between the cpl rank and the sergeant rank by adding lower raises for the cpl/pte ranks for future pay raises until you find a suitable separation;

2) create better specialist categories. I know we have some but for the life of me, I don't know why a search and rescue cpl earns $10,000 per month as basic pay. What I mean by that is that I do not understand the rationale behind how specialist pay works these days but other than special forces and search and rescue, there are relatively modest incentives to create longevity for high skilled tech trades other than reverting to the promotion game;

3) create lager turnover for trades where youth and vigour and large masses are required by fixed term contracts, careful monitoring of those worth keeping for leadership roles and incentivising their continued fixed term service (reenlistment bonuses perhaps), of those not destined for higher rank in the RegF, incentivising their transfer for fixed terms at their current rank to the reserve force (bonus and education benefits) It retains a trained member for further service at reduced annual operating cost;

4) fixed-term contracts means much tighter control over voluntary releases. People must serve out their term to justify the costs spend on training them. In virtually every case you can justify that through a return on investment on training given through obligatory service concepts;

5) a better recruiting, DP 1 training throughput system catering to mass. Such a system provides not only a steady state system but also a foundation for force expansion. I'm not a fan of a common BMQ/BMOQ. I think that each of the army, navy and air force needs to take charge of its recruits from day 1 - I'm not a fan of purple trades either. If the CAF were properly structured for proper mass throughput I think they would meet recruiting goals easily. There already seem to have considerably more applications than open positions. The CAF website says there were 41,473 applications for 7,172 RegF/ResF positions (4,533 RegF). That's an adequate pool without incentives. It's no wonder folks give up on the recruiting process when it can take up to a year. No civilian employer would tolerate an HR system that dysfunctional. If one added proper incentives (which IMHO is real easy with proper education/training incentives and full-time summer employment opportunities for the ResF) one could easily increase these numbers.

6) a better quality of ResF service. Not only does a proper ResF add depth to the CAF, but even in its current poor shape it has been a major source of recruits for the RegF. A better coordinated system that simplifies and incentivizes component transfers (in both directions) will offset the lower initial pay situation. As a starter I would require DP1 parity between RegF and ResF so as to simplify transfers;

7) I'll add in my concept of 30 RegF/70ResF urban units coupled with two classes of full-time RegF service one of which guarantees continued service in a given geographic region during the term of service (but full liability for operational deployments). This would pretty much eliminate all Class B ResF service. The aim is to facilitate a career whereby a spouse can also have a career and remain in their communities with friends and family.

8) create an American-style warrant officer system. Essentially you leave the NCM structure in place but change the names of the existing WO categories to something incorporating the term "sergeant" (e.g. staff sergeant, sergeant major, etc) That leaves the WO ranks available for use in a new structure available to create a number of highly trained, well paid specialists which fall outside either of the NCM and commissioned officer rank structures and who can be recruited as specialists off the street.

 

[quadrapiper]

Comes to mind that a bunch of happy post-short-contract types, both NCM and officer, would help with the whole "connecting the CAF with Canadians" thing.

Dated archetype: a City type with a regimental tie, and regimental ties.