Interesting way to alleviate retention issues...

[dimsum]

Institute a 12-month restriction from post-military to Defence contractors, for those filling Defence civilian jobs. Prime (Canadian) example would be Calian in the medical system.

A departmental moratorium on contracting personnel who have recently separated from Defence for ‘Above the Line’ Defence contractor roles will come into effect on 7 August 2023.

The Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force issued the moratorium through a Joint Directive. The Directive will restrict the engagement from the effective date of continuous part-time and full-time ADF members (SERCAT 6 and 7, respectively) and APS employees seeking to return to Defence as ‘Above the Line’ contractors within a 12-month period of their separation from Defence, into roles that should be undertaken by Defence people.

Defence is committed to supporting the Government’s plan to strengthen the public service and reduce reliance on external labour. This moratorium takes steps to restore the capacity and capability of the Australian Public Service (APS), and is one of the initiatives Defence is implementing as a part of the Defence ‘Above the Line’ Contractor Strategy, which supports these commitments.

An ‘Above the Line’ contractor is someone who is engaged to undertake work that would normally be performed within the APS. It is not someone who is working to deliver a capability for or on behalf of industry partners.

Exceptions to the moratorium may apply in circumstances of compassionate or special measure, commercial necessity to meet Defence capability needs, or if Defence personnel who intend on separating from Defence have negotiated a contract prior to the release of the Directive. These exceptions have been put in place to support both the Department’s management of capability requirements as well as Defence people.

The Directive will not apply to existing ‘Above the Line’ contracting arrangements that were in place before the effective date, or arrangements in relation to outsourced service provider contracts or to contracts with consultants providing specialist advice.

Defence will continue to support the employment of veterans. A register will be established to assist transitioning ADF members and veterans who are interested in APS roles. Further details regarding this register will be released soon.

Attracting, building and retaining the expertise and talent of Defence people is our priority. Work is underway to evolve our employee value proposition and career pathways to ensure Defence is an employer of choice.

Defence continues to value our industry partnerships and recognises the importance of these relationships in providing skills and expertise we need to meet our strategic priorities.
The Directive is available via the Joint Directives intranet site. Further communications will occur on the implementation, tracking and exception process. FAQs that provide more details are attached to this email.

For any questions, please contact the Contractor Taskforce defence.contractortaskforce@dpe.protected.mil.au.


Regards
Matt Yannopoulos, PSM
Associate Secretary
Department of Defence

 

[WLSC]

Institute a 12-month restriction from post-military to Defence contractors, for those filling Defence civilian jobs. Prime (Canadian) example would be Calian in the medical system.

And switching to public services also.

 

[brihard]

And switching to public services also.

Those are two very different beasts. Why should any forces member, in a position to honourably release, be inhibited in continuing to work for Canada in the public service? The intent here appears to be to stymie the ethically grey phenomenon of contractors attracting military members to release and then to work as contractors backfilling positions the military is unable to fill, in part due to these very retention issues. That’s very different from moving to a public service position that is open against some government department’s authorized establishment.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Those are two very different beasts. Why should any forces member, in a position to honourably release, be inhibited in continuing to work for Canada in the public service? The intent here appears to be to stymie the ethically grey phenomenon of contractors attracting military members to release and then to work as contractors backfilling positions the military is unable to fill, in part due to these very retention issues. That’s very different from moving to a public service position that is open against some government department’s authorized establishment.

Many public service organizations have a 'cooling off' period mandated between the time an employee leaves/ retires and the date they can start selling services back to the organization as a contractor.

It's usually about a year I think.

 

[brihard]

Many public service organizations have a 'cooling off' period mandated between the time an employee leaves/ retires and the date they can start selling services back to the organization as a contractor.

It's usually about a year I think.

Yup. I’m fine with that, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Those are two very different beasts. Why should any forces member, in a position to honourably release, be inhibited in continuing to work for Canada in the public service? The intent here appears to be to stymie the ethically grey phenomenon of contractors attracting military members to release and then to work as contractors backfilling positions the military is unable to fill, in part due to these very retention issues. That’s very different from moving to a public service position that is open against some government department’s authorized establishment.

I dunno, I can cite lots of examples of MMTs retiring on Friday and starting work on Monday in a PS job doing the same thing in the same organization. The BLogs are full of them, and I expect many of the HHQ MAT positions are similar.

I know people who turned their mil positions into civi positions and then got hired into that job.

When I started BLog was a mil organization with some civilians in it. Now it's the exact opposite.

To be clear I don't have an issue with people retiring and rolling over into the PS but it looks, smells and tastes pretty similar to me.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Many public service organizations have a 'cooling off' period mandated between the time an employee leaves/ retires and the date they can start selling services back to the organization as a contractor.

It's usually about a year I think.

We already have that for the GoC as a whole under the conflict of interest rules, but only kicks in at a certain rank (3 ringer and up) and only applies to things you were working on. I've noticed their application seems looser for GOFOs compared to senior officers but is a pretty small sample size so YMMV.

A blanket cooling off for everyone seems overkill, and frankly most of our ISSCs wouldn't work if we did that. The GoC wants to contract out a lot of things where they want certain skill sets which are pretty niche, so for anyone eligible for retirement or with a release pending it is a good way to still support the CAF without being in the CAF.

Kicking someone in the junk when they get out and limiting their employment options is an act of self harm, and we already do enough already.

 

[brihard]

I dunno, I can cite lots of examples of MMTs retiring on Friday and starting work on Monday in a PS job doing the same thing in the same organization. The BLogs are full of them, and I expect many of the HHQ MAT positions are similar.

I know people who turned their mil positions into civi positions and then got hired into that job.

When I started BLog was a mil organization with some civilians in it. Now it's the exact opposite.

To be clear I don't have an issue with people retiring and rolling over into the PS but it looks, smells and tastes pretty similar to me.

Shady management that permits this definitely needs to be sorted out. I can’t offhand think of many likely instances where someone has the authority to convert their own job.

Corollary to that, if those jobs are easily and effectively converted to public service, why should they remain military and part of CAF’s uniformed establishment?

 

[daftandbarmy]

We already have that for the GoC as a whole under the conflict of interest rules, but only kicks in at a certain rank (3 ringer and up) and only applies to things you were working on. I've noticed their application seems looser for GOFOs compared to senior officers but is a pretty small sample size so YMMV.

A blanket cooling off for everyone seems overkill, and frankly most of our ISSCs wouldn't work if we did that. The GoC wants to contract out a lot of things where they want certain skill sets which are pretty niche, so for anyone eligible for retirement or with a release pending it is a good way to still support the CAF without being in the CAF.

Kicking someone in the junk when they get out and limiting their employment options is an act of self harm, and we already do enough already.

I'm not been in a position to comment from a first person POV but people tell me there are ethical issues involved, of course, and hiring the same person back can take opportunities away from others in the succession pipeline.

It's also a lazy way for senior leaders to just 'plug a hole'

 

[KevinB]

Gov to private sector needs a cooling off period for certain positions.
There have been numerous cases down here, where even with cooling off periods, there are ‘third party’ consultancy services which is just as bad. It gives a very clear indication that one can can be rewarded for building a program for one’s chosen company, and then financially rewarded for it.

In many cases for senior officers (O-6 and GOFO) I’m of the opinion it should be 3-4years, and a similar period for E-7+ SME positions (and CW4-5 down here)

O-6’s and Higher who have sat in Source Selection boards should be required to have a 5+ year cooling off period.

 

[WLSC]

Those are two very different beasts. Why should any forces member, in a position to honourably release, be inhibited in continuing to work for Canada in the public service? The intent here appears to be to stymie the ethically grey phenomenon of contractors attracting military members to release and then to work as contractors backfilling positions the military is unable to fill, in part due to these very retention issues. That’s very different from moving to a public service position that is open against some government department’s authorized establishment.

How many member have gone from a military posn to a civil servant position doing the same job in the same week? Maybe it should be a case by case of something like that but it should not be as easy it right now.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I have lost approx 25 Sigs pers to SSC or SMC in the past 12 months. We lose more to OGDs than the private sector now. A lot of those folks are handing in shit to Clothing Stores on Friday and starting as Mr. Bloggins on Monday.

 

[Haggis]

How many member have gone from a military posn to a civil servant position doing the same job in the same week? Maybe it should be a case by case of something like that but it should not be as easy it right now.

I personally know of only one. But I know dozens who have gone from Reg F to Class B in the same job, a whole other bag of worms.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Shady management that permits this definitely needs to be sorted out. I can’t offhand think of many likely instances where someone has the authority to convert their own job.

Corollary to that, if those jobs are easily and effectively converted to public service, why should they remain military and part of CAF’s uniformed establishment?

The problem is we lose billets. And they were established to ensure we have a sea to shore ratio. So now instead of the 15 CPO2 MMT positions we had in Halifax, we have 7. Add into that people on MELs and accommodations and now all your shore billets are clogged up and we do pier head jumps all to often*. It absolutely is a detriment to the PO2s and up, where the pyramid starts to thin.

The next is that as an organization like BLog becomes more of a civilian organization it loses touch with its Mil aspect. And our JR folks get polluted with expectations and situations that they don't get as Mil folks.

I have no issues with Civis in the organization, where it has to be held back is when it comes to institutional/organizational leadership positions and critical mass. We have to maintain the Mil aspect of this job.

*I'm just using some made up numbers to express my point. They are not exact.

 

[WLSC]

I personally know of only one. But I know dozens who have gone from Reg F to Class B in the same job, a whole other bag of worms.

Effectively, other bag but same principle. I know 3 who switch. Maybe it was all ok but sometimes, the rules can be blur.

 

[Halifax Tar]

How many member have gone from a military posn to a civil servant position doing the same job in the same week? Maybe it should be a case by case of something like that but it should not be as easy it right now.

It's probably very trade dependent. As a Sup Tech there are tons of employment opportunities for me in the PS. As an infanteer, probably not so much.

But I stand to be corrected.

 

[dapaterson]

The formal DND/CAF policy on post-employment is DAOD 7021-2.

DAOD 7021-2, Post-Employment - Canada.ca

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 7021-2 - Post-Employment

www.canada.ca

 

[Haggis]

It's probably very trade dependent. As a Sup Tech there are tons of employment opportunities for me in the PS. As an infanteer, probably not so much.

But I stand to be corrected.

I made the jump from the Infantry to the PS. But I am in a pretty niche job.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I made the jump from the Infantry to the PS. But I am in a pretty niche job.

My apologies, I often forget that the PS is more than just the Civis who work in DND and the like.

 

[CountDC]

But I know dozens who have gone from Reg F to Class B in the same job, a whole other bag of worms.

This used to be even worse back in the early 90's. biggest case I dealt with was a CWO turned his Reg F posn into a PRes posn that happened to correspond to his retirement from the RegF after 35 years so he could step right into the Cl B PRes posn doing the exact same job. Gets better - somehow he had a year and a half of leave to use up so was on "retirement leave" for that period and at the time we had what was called VOLEM. This meant that for the 1.5 years of retirement leave he was getting both RegF pay and PRes pay then went to Pension and PRes after that. He was Admin CWO that had the contacts, knew the rules and how to play the game to the fullest for his own benefit.

I think there should be a cooling off period preventing members from stepping into the same job they were doing. Taking another PS position is fine.