'Hard-sell' navy targets lagging military profile

[sjtigers]

I realize from looking at other postings it is hardly news but here is an article from today's Ottawa Citizen:

Vice Admiral Dean McFadden wants the navy to be more specific and targeted in its recruiting.

Canada's top sailor says the country's navy has bottomed out in its ongoing problems with recruiting, and he is cautiously optimistic about new initiatives to attract skilled personnel to the maritime force.

Military recruiting efforts have focused on the army and the need to bring in personnel for the Afghanistan war, leaving the navy's ranks depleted and ships hurting for crews.

At the same time, attrition has taken its toll, creating what officers describe as a serious and worsening situation.

The navy's commander, Vice Admiral Dean McFadden, says the force hasn't yet turned the corner on its recruiting problems, but there are positive signs.

"The bit that keeps me reasonably comfortable is that I think we've bottomed out," said McFadden, who was named as head of the navy in June. "I think people have come to understand the extent of the problem, and I'm seeing measures put in place to get it fixed."

The navy has estimated that it will be short 1,000 full-time personnel by 2011. It now has 7,900 full-time personnel and 3,345 reservists.

McFadden said the focus at recruiting centres during the past several years had been on the army.

"There is no doubt that, in order to generate the land capabilities for what is the critical mission for us in Afghanistan, there are consequences in recruiting centres," he said. "A great many of the folks there are recently back from Afghanistan, and, when a young man or woman comes in, they can't help but be impressed by that individual."

He said there needed to be a better understanding in the Canadian Forces, not only of the navy's requirement for more sailors, but also of the necessity of technically qualified maritime recruits.

The navy has been trying to raise its profile lately, once again this summer undertaking a recruiting drive using one of its ships to visit ports in Quebec and Ontario. As well, a senior naval officer has been assigned to the Canadian Forces recruiting group, a move that McFadden hopes will raise the service's profile in that area.

"We understand we need to be more specific and targeted in our recruiting," he said.

In addition, the Canadian Forces is highlighting a subsidized education plan for naval technical occupations to interest students in community colleges.

The navy saw an increase in September in recruiting. McFadden, however, has said the overall progress of recruiting won't be known until early next year.

The navy has put more resources into supporting recruiting efforts, but while it has been successful in attracting new personnel, it hasn't been able to keep up with attrition. In addition, attrition for navy occupations is somewhat higher than those for the army or air force, a November 2008 Defence Department briefing report indicated.

"There is no doubt that the Navy, in terms of recruiting, was and remains a 'hard sell,'" the briefing concluded. "While this can be said of a number of technical occupations across the CF, the cumulative impact of consistent under-recruiting, combined with a trend to increased attrition, are having disproportionate impacts on the relatively small Naval occupations."

One of the main problems is that few Canadians know about the navy, officers say.

"Strategically, I believe that our major issue is a lack of public awareness of (the) Navy, what it does, how it does it and why it is a good life, one that Canadians should be considering actively and positively," Col. Matthew Overton, commander of the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group at CFB Borden, Ont., wrote in November 2008.

McFadden has been meeting with media outlets in an attempt to raise the navy's profile.

"We need to do a better job in explaining our purpose," he said. "What is the value of predominately young Canadian men and women choosing service, and why should they be looking at the navy? I've got a big part to play in (explaining) that."

Military officers said last year that the navy must routinely "borrow" sailors from other ships to send warships out to sea. For example, when HMCS Protecteur operated in the Indian Ocean last summer, 108 of the ship's crew of 260 were not normally assigned to that supply vessel.

 

[sjtigers]

here is the link http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Hard%20sell%20navy%20targets%20lagging%20military%20profile/2104706/story.html

I had meant to put this in the Navy News section not sure if it is better there or here sorry.

 

[kratz]

Thank you for the post sjtigers. There are a few places I could think this could have been posted to. This thread is as good as the others IMO.

 

[silverbirdtank]

Read this article, my applications in to join the navy so hope that helps the Vice Admiral.

 

[CallOfDuty]

.....I went to one of those " town hall" meetings that the Vice Admiral had here in Halifax one day.  Seemed like a good guy with good intentions, and a real love for the navy.  He spoke of recruiting and retention, but honestly didn't seem to know exactly what to do about the situation.
    I have to say....from what I've seen and people I've talked to, that there are some issues with the navy, that cannot be fixed.  They want people to join up and become a sailor.  The thing is, that in past socitety it was normal to have a father that would be gone alot of the time and not pariticipate in the normal child raising, house running sort of stuff.  Nowadays, in most homes I'd say its 50-50 with fathers being alot more involved in the home than in the past.  Now take a guy who joins the navy and spends X- amount of time away from home at any given time.  It just doesn't fly as much as it used to.  Wives work more now than they used to, and need a partner there. 
    I've spent many a Friday night at the Fleet club here in Halifax and have heard the stories of guys that have spent most of the last 3 or 4 years of their life at sea, and have broken families to show for it, who wish they could have a " normal" job.
  I know lots of young single guys who LOVE the navy....but I know many more married guys who are just looking to get out of it. 
  I'm not trying to slag the navy...but to me, it just makes sence why most people would be turned off by the idea of it.  Doesn't matter if they offer technical training or a certain skillset.  It still means alot if time away from home...especially for those technical trades("hard sea trades").
  Thats my take on some of the navy's issues.
Cheers

 

[srhodes]

Hello:
Interesting subject. Thanks to those who have posted.  I would like to hear more in depth info from people in the know about why this is the case (why the Navy has been and is having “ongoing” difficulty with recruitment and retention)??  Could it just be that the salaries are not as competitive as the Navy thinks they are? Especially when you factor in the serious disruptions to a normal family life (as TangoHotel mentioned), risk, danger, lack of privacy at sea, etc, etc..  Perhaps the Navy need to re-look at what they pay people.  I think most people would agree that superior remuneration + excellent benefits plays a major role with these issues.

Welcome all feedback from CF members (especially Navy)…

 

[gcclarke]

Hello:
Interesting subject. Thanks to those who have posted.  I would like to hear more in depth info from people in the know about why this is the case (why the Navy has been and is having “ongoing” difficulty with recruitment and retention)??  Could it just be that the salaries are not as competitive as the Navy thinks they are? Especially when you factor in the serious disruptions to a normal family life (as TangoHotel mentioned), risk, danger, lack of privacy at sea, etc, etc..  Perhaps the Navy need to re-look at what they pay people.  I think most people would agree that superior remuneration + excellent benefits plays a major role with these issues.

Welcome all feedback from CF members (especially Navy)…

The Navy would love to be able to re-look at what they pay people. Unfortunately, the Navy doesn't determine the pay rates for our sailors. Pay rates are the same across the entire Canadian Forces, and are determined by Treasury Board.

At best, we can fight to get the NCMs in distressed Naval Trades as much spec pay as we could justify them being entitled to, however this isn't exactly a perfect fix, as the trades that are in the most trouble already receive spec pay. I suppose a massive increase in sea pay would also help, but still, this is not something that the CF can unilaterally decide to do.

Recruitment and retention are two different issues. For retention, scaling back the amount of time that we spend at sea is, unfortunately, likely the only feasible thing that can be done on our end. Like TangoHotel said, expecting parents (Of either gender mind you!) to spend time away from their kids is, despite it being a natural part of the job, going to cause some people to want to quit. I'm unsure if our typical sailor spends more time away from home than our air force and army brethren, percentage wise, but I believe the impression that it happens is there, as even people posted to a standard readiness unit can expect to be sailing frequently, albiet not for extended periods (6+ months) at a time.

As for a wish list to aid retention, well I have two things in mind. The first is leave. We start out with 20 days of leave, bumped up to 25 after 5 years, and then after that, bumped up to 30 after 28 years. Quite the gap there. If after 5 years, instead of that, we could perhaps receive one extra day of leave every three or four years, until we hit 30 days total, this would give people a much greater incentive to stick around.

The other obvious idea would be the institution of some sort of re-signing bonus once people have completed their current TOS.

Of course, both of these changes would have to be implemented CF-wide.

As for recruitment, I do believe that is, to a large extent, a visibility issue. There's a war going on. The army is obviously quite busy, and the air force is also obviously helping out. The navy does not seem particularly involved in the war in the land-locked country. And yes, before you start to jump on me, I know that many Naval personnel are involved in Afghanistan, but I'm talking about public perception here.

So this is why things like OP CONNECTION are important. We do, honestly, need to take a hard turn away from doing stuff, towards getting ourselves ready to do stuff. Our focus for at least the first part of the next decade needs to be Force Generation. And once things do start go gear down in the sandbox, I think that will help with our recruitment as well. Once people coming into the recruiting centres aren't convinced before they even get there that they should join the Army to support the war effort, I think that we'll have an easier time steering them towards becoming a sailor.

As per usual, this is just my not so humble opinion.

 

[srhodes]

Well, perhaps the Vice Admiral should speak with the Treasury Board people in that case. I think he’ll find the problems he is having will instantly let up once people see bigger numbers on their pay cheques and/or pension cheques in exchange for the strained marriages, divorces in other cases, long periods away from home and Little Johnny, risk, etc.

I don’t find the arguments that the Navy has a lower profile (visability issue) due to army focused activities (i.e. Afhganistan) very cogent.  Bait meant to detract from addressing the real issues.  I don’t think people in this country are that out to lunch.  We have the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on both sides of us.  Of course we have a Navy! 

 

[X-mo-1979]

I think you are right about the OP connection.Coming from a army guy I can see why many kids would be going army.Movies,video games,main stream media have made the combat trades appealing.Join up and kill people.when I think of the Airforce again movies, video games, and combat flying in Afghanistan.

However when I think of the navy I think of a ship.The cool things I think of are really small if any.Boarding party seems cool..but then the recruit realizes its a rag tag thing and not a actual trade.Shooting the guns on the ship seem cool,but really how much does that happen?And who actually does it?IIRC its Navy weapons tech?(I dont know for sure)And if so suddenly that job is a not a trade.

How about instead of extra leave and pay why dont you tell us the cool sexy jobs the navy has.And not secondary tasks actual trades that as a recruit coming in could be doing.

Cause from my stand point the only good thing the navy has going for it is lack of rucksacks, and a couple free university courses.

 

[gcclarke]

Well I was a big fan of the free trips I got to Hawaii and San Diego the last time I was posted to ship.

As for shooting the gun, depends on which gun. If we're talking the 50 Cal., then it's the Bos'ns. If we're talking the main gun, or any of the missiles, then it's either a MARS Officer or one of the Snr NESOps. Torpedos, MARS Officer, or a Snr SonarOp.

But again, I guess it depends on what you define as sexy. From your post, the impression that I'm getting is that "sexy" equates to "likely to be able to kill someone". So no, I guess the Navy as a whole hasn't gotten too much of that in recent conflicts. And even when we do, the "someones" that we take out, are typically going to be a whole bunch of people on another ship over the horizon. Is it "sexy" to watch a blip on a screen disappear and know that it's because your anti-ship missiles took out the target? To some people, yes. Others? Maybe not so much. But it's still bloody fun watching that missile let loose.

I think the real problem is moreso one of scale. The most basic unit of Force in the Army is a soldier and his rifle. In the Navy, it's pretty much the ship as a whole. The tasks we perform are done in order to allow the Captain to do his job. To some people, the aspect of being part of a team working together to a single task is appealing. To some, it may make them feel like a cog in a machine.

As for the lack of ruck sacks, you also forget the fact that we always bring our beds, our galley, and our bars with us. I'm not going to claim that there are no downsides to life on ship, but overall it's a pretty sweet gig.

 

[CallOfDuty]

....I'm not so sure money is the issue.  I think the reason they have as many people on ships right now is because it's good money.  A good buddy of mine is a master seaman NESOP.  When he was a LS( not sure what level), he did 6 months in the Gulf. 
  He told me that year with his regular pay, his sea duty pay, his spec pay and his tour $$, that he made almost 90,000 dollars that year.  For a young guy, 23 years old, no wife, kids or responsibilities....thats HUGE. 

 

 

[MARS]

We have the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on both sides of us.  Of course we have a Navy!

...and an Arctic Ocean to the North.  That is exactly what people mean when they speak of Maritime Blindness.  For every person that considers only two of the three oceans, there is likely someone who doesn't even take things that far.

 

[NavyShooter]

Well, 

I don't think money is going to fix this.

As of right now, an OS in his 2nd year in the military is making $38,496

Get your killicks up and you're up to over $52,000

As a spec 1 trade, a LS gets just shy of 60K in a year.

The average pay rate outside the CF (from 2005 stats located here:  http://www.worldsalaries.org/canada.shtml ) is $3.156 per month, or $37, 872 per year.

In your 2nd year in the CF, you're able to earn a wage that's in excess of the Canadian average salary.

Money is not the problem.  We earn good money for what we do.

When I go back to sea, I'll be just shy of my 12 years Sea Duty Allowance level, which will add an extra $662 per month to my pay.  Not bad, getting an extra $8 grand for going to sea. 

That said, I took a pay cut to go ashore, and am not complaining in the least about it.

Five years straight on ship (cross-decked from STJ to MON just in time for a SNMG-1 trip!) and duty watches every 2 weeks (or less!) plus continual manning shortages, taskings, secondary duties, etc etc, it wears on ya.

Truly, it's not a job for everyone. 

The hard part is finding the right people.  I'd rather find the right people than have to put up with the wrong ones who are there solely for the money. 

How do we attract those people?  They're out there, but how do we bring them in?

Personally, I think the best recruiters are the average sailors that are currently in the CF.  They have the best hands-on knowledge and experience WRT what our jobs actually entail, and how we do our business.

I think that if there was some sort of "head hunter" bonus paid to regular CF members for every person we brought in the door who successfully completed basic training and basic trades training, you'd some improvement in numbers, and BETTER SELECTION, as the people who'd come in would be more likely to be well suited, as the CF Members would help ween out those who weren't as suitable, and those who came in the door would be better prepared than the normal lines of BS that they string at the recruiting centers.

Personally, I think the recruiting system is broken.  And has been for years. 

How many of us were lied to by a recruiter?  Raise your hands...  I know I was. 

Fix the recruiting system, and in the meantime, employ your existing sailors as headhunters.  I'm sure we all have a couple of friends or cousins or such that we'd be able to see wearing a uniform.

NS

 

[X-mo-1979]

Well I was a big fan of the free trips I got to Hawaii and San Diego the last time I was posted to ship.

As for shooting the gun, depends on which gun. If we're talking the 50 Cal., then it's the Bos'ns. If we're talking the main gun, or any of the missiles, then it's either a MARS Officer or one of the Snr NESOps. Torpedos, MARS Officer, or a Snr SonarOp.

But again, I guess it depends on what you define as sexy. From your post, the impression that I'm getting is that "sexy" equates to "likely to be able to kill someone". So no, I guess the Navy as a whole hasn't gotten too much of that in recent conflicts. And even when we do, the "someones" that we take out, are typically going to be a whole bunch of people on another ship over the horizon. Is it "sexy" to watch a blip on a screen disappear and know that it's because your anti-ship missiles took out the target? To some people, yes. Others? Maybe not so much. But it's still bloody fun watching that missile let loose.

I think the real problem is moreso one of scale. The most basic unit of Force in the Army is a soldier and his rifle. In the Navy, it's pretty much the ship as a whole. The tasks we perform are done in order to allow the Captain to do his job. To some people, the aspect of being part of a team working together to a single task is appealing. To some, it may make them feel like a cog in a machine.

As for the lack of ruck sacks, you also forget the fact that we always bring our beds, our galley, and our bars with us. I'm not going to claim that there are no downsides to life on ship, but overall it's a pretty sweet gig.

I fully agree on the scale.And I think it may have to do with the generation as well.I'm willing to say the generation before me were more inclined to go to sea due to family history at sea.Here I sit at my computer and my great grandfathers picture of him building a schooner is on my wall here in the room.Young boys who wanted to make good money and carry on the seafaring life would join the navy.However with the decline in fishing,sea lifestyle the navy may now be feeling the repercussions of that.

Not to mention in the past 10 years the only thing I have seen the navy doing in the media has been humanitarian aid and a few drug busts.Compared to the other branches coverage I can see why the other two are recruiting more.






As for the navy visiting cool port's thats a plus I never really thought of.However in the past two years I have been in 6 countries thanks to the Army myself.

 

[gcclarke]

Not to mention in the past 10 years the only thing I have seen the navy doing in the media has been humanitarian aid and a few drug busts.Compared to the other branches coverage I can see why the other two are recruiting more.

I will agree with you there. Although, the drug busts aren't all that bad. I myself like that I am able to say that I know what 22.5 tonnes of Hashish looks like, having handled it (in 50 lb bales at a time) myself.

I think WIN's recent anti-piracy mission does help in this regard. The only problem with that is with what to do with the pirates after they're caught. It's weird when there are situations when it'd be fine to blast them away, but you can't actually procecute them. But still, I think it generated a fair bit of good press, definitely more than our typical Gulf tours and fishpats and NATO tours ever do.

And now that I think about it, there is also a factor of regional representation. There are Army and Air Force bases scattered throughout the country, whereas, other than the stone frigates, the only Naval representation is concentrated in two locations. Everytime I tell someone I'm from Calgary, the question I always get is "Why would a prairie boy join the Navy?!" For some reason no one asks the same thing of a Maritimer in the Army.

But again, I don't anticipate getting any oceans inland anytime soon, so we'll have to work around this. Again, stuff like OP CONNECTION is good for that. I'm glad to see that we are taking a more pro-active role in our own recruitment, rather than letting CFRG do all the work.

 

[dapaterson]

I myself like that I am able to say that I know what 22.5 tonnes of Hashish looks like, having handled it (in 50 lb bales at a time) myself.

Heck, if that's the standard we should be recruiting like mad in British Columbia  ;D

More seriously, part of the challenge has been a focus in recent years on force expansion, which was primarily Army positions.  There is now an increasing awareness of shortfalls in key trades, and increased emphasis on those problem areas.

There's also the challenge that many sea trades are becoming increasingly technical in nature (hence the spec pay).  That makes it more difficult to find quality candidates who will succeed through the technical training.

On the topic of recruiting bounties:  Anecdotally, I know of one former Reserve unit CO who years ago paid soldiers a case of beer if they recruited someone - payable when their recruit completed their QL3.  Today, of course, that would never fly, but putting incentives into the system to encourage everyone to recruit should be a no-brainer.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I had an enlightening (and fully sober) conversation with an experienced stoker last month about navy retention problems. He was just starting a shore posting and was very happy to get away from the ship. Not because he disliked his job, which I found astounding seeing as he seemed to have spent most of his career below decks in the engine room for days on end, but the leadership.

He simply hated his officers, and it was his assertion (through the chain smoking) that this dislike of their officers was a primary reason for sailors getting out in droves. He might have been a professional 'officer hater' as far as I know, but was quite emphatic, and seemed to have a special 'thing' for MARS officers. He was also seriously thinking about getting out to do something else, so may have been trying to rationalize this decision in some way.

Anyways, just thought I'd drop that ray of sunshine into the mix.  ;D

 

[X-mo-1979]

I was going to throw that out there too.We had a few army guys spend some time on a ship a while back from my regiment (1999 IIRC).One brought up the story a while back about the meal lineup.Two officers jumped up to the head of the line,which is something we never see in the army.And then turned around and said "if you wanted to eat first you should have gotten a education."

I have no idea if it's true,just what I was told.

 

[ballz]

Wow I hope that one's not true X-mo...

I think that nowhere in the near future is the Navy going to be able to recruit at the levels Army or Air Force, not with the way the near future seems to be shaping up.

I think the Navy's best chance is if more guys like Gen Hillier step up and keep strengthening the bond between the CF and Canadians. The stronger that bond, and the more patriotic our people, the easier it will be to recruit. Do you really think it's because of fancy commercials or more visits from recruiters to specific places that's causing such a large increase in recruiting? I don't. You can talk all you want, people won't buy what you're selling.

The US has no problems with recruiting (well they say they do, but about .5% of their population is Full-time military, where as we only have about .17%... if you include Reservists they've got about 1% of their population recruited, and we've only got about .24%, so compared to us they're doing OK).

I don't think it's because of their recruiting money. The way they recruit is borderline rediculous and I don't think their population takes the recruiters very seriously. I think our recruiters have a much better image amongst the public and an advantage in that area. What that country does have is way more pride and way more visible patriotism. Their pride and support for their military is huge. It makes people want to be a part of it. They know they will be appreciated for what they do and that they will be recognized for it.

Canadians are much prouder about our military lately and much more supportive. It is becoming a more appealing career and it has little to do with money. I notice a lot of people I went to school with in Fort McMurray, who have no idea what they want to do with their life except that they don't want to live and work in Fort McMurray for a lot of money because they realize how much money isn't worth if you don't love your job and your life, are considering the military and a nice few have signed up. I'm one of them.

 

[MARS]

I was going to throw that out there too.We had a few army guys spend some time on a ship a while back from my regiment (1999 IIRC).One brought up the story a while back about the meal lineup.Two officers jumped up to the head of the line,which is something we never see in the army.And then turned around and said "if you wanted to eat first you should have gotten a education."

I have no idea if it's true,just what I was told.

If true, that is garbage.  I question its veracity on on point though

Two officers jumped up to the head of the line

In major warships the officers don't wait in line - they take their meals in the Wardroom.

Which only leaves KINGSTON-Class Ships, which sucks because those would be my peers.  However, there are less than 40 people on board those ships, 5 of which are officers, including the Captain.  Everyone knows everybody else quite well.  You know the names of the wives, husbands, kids etc of everyone on board.  The entire Ships Company is pretty tight - really tight. And I have never seen anything as described that in my time - I have always seen the officers eat last and the CO dead last. 

I suppose it could have been a MARS IV candidate or something....but something like that wouldn't fly for very long - word would spread to all messes before the meal was even over and the Coxswain would be speaking with the XO before Out Pipes, for sure.