Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[PuckChaser]

Maybe it's time to separate CAF recruiting into Army, Navy, Air Force offices and let the three branches vet and administer the people.

Because needing 3x the heavily red support trades is a genius idea. Recruiting is broken, but it's not broken because we're trying to be efficient running a joint recruiting apparatus.

 

[dapaterson]

Maybe it's time to separate CAF recruiting into Army, Navy, Air Force offices and let the three branches vet and administer the people.

So three or more recruiting systems instead of one?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

It's not necessarily the recruiting apparatuses that need fixed more than just the policies in place.

-CEMS needs to be given en a good hard look as to if it's relevant still (especially when it differs tremendously with the Min Med standards for a lot of our support trades).

-Running a merit board for applicants is a ridiculous hoop with very little yield. How many applicants pull out of the process because they're waiting on the board to sit? Have the CFRCs do QC, get the person enrolled, and let's have them shoot their shot. PRB and 5D/F if they can't hack it. We lose more people in application than we should during training and that's wrong.

-Equity Targets are things to recruit towards, not to bar applicants against. If we have applicants coming in for in demand trades, fuck your quotas. We don't have the luxury when we're 16-20K in the hole and have commitments to make.

 

[Underway]

Na just clever account, they will do what some others do an add coast guard spending into the numbers, that will bump us up .3 or so

So like most of Europe does?

 

[Underway]

1. Uniform choices are not a recruiting tool. They are too allow members to feel more comfortable and give them choice. I don't think its even a retention tool.
2. Recruiting doesn't give a crap if you are 25 to life. The entire org is geared to BMQ, initial environmental and trades training. After that its the trades problem to keep them. If someone does their 5 years then mission accomplished.
3. Job market is hyper competative everywhere. Spouse is civi recruiter and its dog eat dog out there. The Boomer retirement wave started a little early thanks to COVID and is just rolling over everyone. Combined with reduced cohort of millenials. RN recruiting is down 25%+, US only element to even get close to their targets is USMC.

Running a merit board for applicants is a ridiculous hoop with very little yield. How many applicants pull out of the process because they're waiting on the board to sit? Have the CFRCs do QC, get the person enrolled, and let's have them shoot their shot. PRB and 5D/F if they can't hack it. We lose more people in application than we should during training and that's wrong.

Speed of entry is a challenge. And it gets worse as there are less people. They aren't going to run a basic every week for 15 people. The system tries to align BMQ with trades training. If trades training is once per year then BMQ for that trade is once per year. So you wait until about a month out from BMQ on the list until selection.

So the alternative to what you are saying here is hire them with no merit board ASAP. Then we won't give them a BMQ, and have them sit on PAT platoon for 4 months instead, where they get in trouble and release anyways because they aren't doing anything. We tried that during Afghanistan. Disaster.

RCN I think has an interesting idea with the Naval Experience Program, bascially a summer to summer gap year idea where you target a specific time and age and go from there.

Equity Targets are things to recruit towards, not to bar applicants against. If we have applicants coming in for in demand trades, fuck your quotas. We don't have the luxury when we're 16-20K in the hole and have commitments to make.

Recruiting doesnt do this. Never had enough applicants to even think about it. We target communities for sure, but don't turn away anyone. The only place that has equity numbers they must hit for entry is RMC. And its based only on geography. So if you get into RMC its in competition from the pool of applicants from your province not against everyone from everywhere.

 

[Underway]

Back to this 2% number.

I'm not sure if I mentioned it here, but there is work afoot to modify procurement. Something called a Capability Retention Process (or something like that).

Basically if the CAF already has a capability, then we can go shopping for something that already exists on the market somewhere and buy it, as long as it matches the currently existing capability.

I'm not sure where the guardrails are going to be but there seems to be some large projects that are test driving a version of this right now.

The P-8 purchase for example. Capability for MPA exists (with all the missions and equipment that entails). RCAF looked at what was available, what capabilities were out there and chose an aircraft that was the best option of the ones on the market. No RFI, no competition just Capability Retention.

This may be applied to submarine and tank replacements as well. We'll have to see.

 

[Kirkhill]

Which offices get the clerks, Supply Techs, Med Techs, etc?

The Commissary and Wagon Trains.

I wuv Histowy.

 

[Quirky]

Which offices get the clerks, Supply Techs, Med Techs, etc?

All of them. Pick your element.

 

[markppcli]

Maybe it's time to separate CAF recruiting into Army, Navy, Air Force offices and let the three branches vet and administer the people.

I can think of no more perfectly CAF response to a problem than tripling the number of recruiting head quarters.

 

[Quirky]

I can think of no more perfectly CAF response to a problem than tripling the number of recruiting head quarters.

You’re assuming we will run the same recruiting model and just triple it. I do like the current status quo, seems to be a complete and utter failure. We should just stay the course….

 

[PuckChaser]

You’re assuming we will run the same recruiting model and just triple it. I do like the current status quo, seems to be a complete and utter failure. We should just stay the course….

You've failed to articulate any point at all that would support each L1 doing its own recruiting. Throwing your hands up and staying the status quo doesn't work is quite frankly stating the obvious without actually explaining how the hell your suggestion fixes anything. Maybe it's a harder problem than a one liner SCS Reddit meme can fix?

 

[Furniture]

1. Uniform choices are not a recruiting tool. They are too allow members to feel more comfortable and give them choice. I don't think its even a retention tool.
2. Recruiting doesn't give a crap if you are 25 to life. The entire org is geared to BMQ, initial environmental and trades training. After that its the trades problem to keep them. If someone does their 5 years then mission accomplished.
3. Job market is hyper competative everywhere. Spouse is civi recruiter and its dog eat dog out there. The Boomer retirement wave started a little early thanks to COVID and is just rolling over everyone. Combined with reduced cohort of millenials. RN recruiting is down 25%+, US only element to even get close to their targets is USMC.


Speed of entry is a challenge. And it gets worse as there are less people. They aren't going to run a basic every week for 15 people. The system tries to align BMQ with trades training. If trades training is once per year then BMQ for that trade is once per year. So you wait until about a month out from BMQ on the list until selection.

So the alternative to what you are saying here is hire them with no merit board ASAP. Then we won't give them a BMQ, and have them sit on PAT platoon for 4 months instead, where they get in trouble and release anyways because they aren't doing anything. We tried that during Afghanistan. Disaster.

RCN I think has an interesting idea with the Naval Experience Program, bascially a summer to summer gap year idea where you target a specific time and age and go from there.

Recruiting doesnt do this. Never had enough applicants to even think about it. We target communities for sure, but don't turn away anyone. The only place that has equity numbers they must hit for entry is RMC. And its based only on geography. So if you get into RMC its in competition from the pool of applicants from your province not against everyone from everywhere.

That runs counter to what a recruiter told the news last fall...

Military sounding alarm over recruiting problems as Canadians steer clear

“We’re selling the benefits of being in the Canadian Armed Forces,” he says. “The pension, the medical, the dental, the education piece, continuing education, as well as a pretty interesting career where you get to travel around the world, potentially, and get paid to do it.”


Recruiters are given targets to meet, with spots divvied up by trade, as well as minimum targets for female recruits and maximums for men. There is also a high-level push for what the military still refers to as “visible minorities” and Indigenous people.

“Diversity is what we’re after,” Clark says.

 

[markppcli]

I do wonder if we could let people’s back ground checks be pending during their time at St Jean ? I imagine medical has sorted to ensure the candidates can actually do what ever passes for physical training in BMQ now. But back ground stuff could probably be pending with some kind of policy shift to allow dismissal if it’s not clear.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I do wonder if we could let people’s back ground checks be pending during their time at St Jean ?

Agreed. I think a CPIC handed in by the applicant on enrollment would suffice. Start ER process at or after BMQ.

I imagine medical has sorted to ensure the candidates can actually do what ever passes for physical training in BMQ now.

Not quite. The CEMS piece requires G2 and O2 for the applicant to be enrolled, if not you're medically disqualified. Some common disqualifiers are antidepressant use (which has become more prevalent with better understanding of their uses and effects) and behavioral stuff requiring stimulant therapy (ADHD, etc. That we also, too, understand better and how they affect people).

I am currently serving as an autistic with ADHD and and maintain G3 and O3 with zero career implications. We're I to try and walk through the door as a civilian... no bueno. Then again, the Med Standard for my MOSID allows for G3 and O3 within breaching universality of service.

There isn't anything drastic in BMQ that would require that amount of stringent screening medically to exempt a large portion of the population (and one that is growing, as we better understand treating mental and behavioral health issues)

But back ground stuff could probably be pending with some kind of policy shift to allow dismissal if it’s not clear.

Dismissal is so much easier when people actually apply policy to it. Irregular enrollment has its own release category for God sake even.

 

[Underway]

That runs counter to what a recruiter told the news last fall...

Military sounding alarm over recruiting problems as Canadians steer clear

That's a misrepresentation of what actually happens. There are targets because all gov't recruiting has targets. But no one is told to take a hike because they don't match some equity calculation. Perhaps if we had a 135% applications to positions those decisions might have to be made, but its pretty hard when you can't meet any artificial ceilings or targets because you're at 65% instead.

I do wonder if we could let people’s back ground checks be pending during their time at St Jean

That's certainly something that needs to be looked at. I'm not sure (and will find out in Sept) but I believe the landed immigrant option will allow for reliable status, pending other options. Canadians can get high status much more quickly.

However that's a big challenge for the RCN. All trades onboard ship need higher than reliable. And if that takes too long well, you're screwed.

 

[markppcli]

That's a misrepresentation of what actually happens. There are targets because all gov't recruiting has targets. But no one is told to take a hike because they don't match some equity calculation. Perhaps if we had a 135% applications to positions those decisions might have to be made, but its pretty hard when you can't meet any artificial ceilings or targets because you're at 65% instead.


That's certainly something that needs to be looked at. I'm not sure (and will find out in Sept) but I believe the landed immigrant option will allow for reliable status, pending other options. Canadians can get high status much more quickly.

However that's a big challenge for the RCN. All trades onboard ship need higher than reliable. And if that takes too long well, you're screwed.

Yeah I have umm, questions about the navy’s one year program I won’t lie

 

[daftandbarmy]

Military recruiting suffers from deep failures in.... military recruiting.

And it's nice to see that the RCN is demonstrating how we are moving away from the 'whole of force' approach recommended below for solving current recruiting issues

The U.S. Army Has a Recruitment Problem. Here's How to Solve It​

It is also valuable to understand the historic and current context around the Army’s recruiting gap. For instance, shortfalls are not new to the force. As it enters the 50th year of the all-volunteer force, the Army has experienced multiple periods of recruiting highs and lows, from the surges in the wake of 9/11 patriotism to similar difficulties in recruiting following the Vietnam War and during the Iraq War. It has also regularly been lifted or buffeted by the surrounding economy, with today’s low unemployment rate being good for job prospects, but tougher for military recruiting.

Nor is the current recruiting challenge unique to the U.S. Canada’s armed forces presently have such a far more severe shortage, such that about 1 in 10 of its military’s 100,000 positions are unfilled. In turn, even the U.S.’s new strategic competitors face recruiting challenges. Russia’s army has had to turn to conscription and the use of prisoners to fill out its ranks during the Ukraine war, while the People’s Liberation Army is scrambling to fill gaps in well-educated young troops, leading China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, to call for a greater “sense of urgency” on military-personnel modernization at both the 19th and 20th Party Congresses.

This recruiting “war” will only be won if actual organizational incentives and leader evaluations are changed to reflect the force’s needs. We must turn outreach into a real whole-of-force effort, with the inducements to match. An example start is a pilot program that mirrors how civilian industry recruits; successful companies don’t just rely on their HR department in a job search, but also enlist their own employees’ peer networks. The new Army pilot similarly rewards enlisted soldiers who personally aid recruiting, by providing them with a promotion if their referral draws another soldier into the force.

For all the controversy that surrounds the Army’s recruiting shortfall, its answers lie in reflecting the world we live in. The successful force of tomorrow will be built not from the angry debate but from sound policy. And that may be the best outcome of all.

The U.S. Army Has a Recruitment Problem. Here's How to Solve It

The U.S. Army must change to reflect the world we live in, write Colonel Carmelia Scottskillern and P. W. Singer.

time.com

 

[Quirky]

You've failed to articulate any point at all that would support each L1 doing its own recruiting. Throwing your hands up and staying the status quo doesn't work is quite frankly stating the obvious without actually explaining how the hell your suggestion fixes anything. Maybe it's a harder problem than a one liner SCS Reddit meme can fix?

We have 100+ GOFOs all with their own staff and bloated salaries, you’d think at least of one those people can come up with ideas to reduce applicants waiting from years to a few months. I’m just one of the dudes keeping the lights on the titanic, not my job to sell the tickets.

 

[PuckChaser]

Ah, so flippant ideas without any background thought or coherent plan. Gotcha.

Thank you for your service then.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I worked in a HQ before and directly for GOFOs. What I found is that the GOFOs themselves are not necessarily afraid to act but the staff underneath always tried to have the 100% solution before they presented anything to GOFOs. I was more than happy to send 80% solutions when I was working there and my small staff and I were able to effect some significant change to airworthiness policies in several domains. I am comfortable implementing something that may be flawed but at least, it’s a starting point to iterate from.

All that to say, it’s easy to blame GOFOs but in reality, some people are somehow afraid to bring anything they don’t consider perfect and that slows the system down. Paralysis by analysis.