PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Pat in Halifax]

Vern:
Fair enough and maybe I was making a bit of a generalization. That will indeed work, maybe even for most trades but I can tell you first hand, it cannot for all (in their current trade progression construct). Most of the shipboard positions for the technical trades (Mar Eng, WEng especially) are double hatted in that they are both Force employment but have a Force generation caveat. Yes, I know you are always in preps to assume your supervisor's job, but there is a bit of a difference here and I admit that this may (more likely WILL) require a major cultural shift. I also admit that this may be a Navy only problem. Essentially, if you request to cease training at the LS rank in pretty much any (Navy)trade, you will no longer be in uniform within a few years. I am saying that this opting out possibility will create a mechanism to allow that. I personally am eager to see if this can work because (as I said in another thread) we need a change in culture and this may be the impetus for it. That said, thank you for the insight and I am going to keep in mind what you said because I know of a few who want to do this now. The next step is to introduce some sort of financial incentive allowing us to increase their pay to align with experience, training etc. other than the 4 incentives at rank.

 

[Journeyman]

I have a couple of stars who've essentially "opted out" of career progression.

So you're saying that you have troops who look to you and decide  "  I definitely don't want to end up like her!"    >

          ;D

 

[armyvern]

...

What's I've seen happen currently is less formal -- when CFR'd Captains don't bother doing AJOSQ or CAFJOD, or when experienced Majors or MWOs don't speak a word of French, that results in the member not getting ranked anywhere near the top of the unit merit list. And therefore their PER never has scores good enough to make it to promotion board. So the member never gets a promotion offer that they would refuse.

The above is related to potential, but how is their actual performance.  Two different beasts as I see them.  In my trade, one can still be promoted past MWO without a language profile (if they showed the potential ability to perform at the next rank), but they just wouldn't be able to be employed in any trade, branch or environmental succession planned positions.  CWO Sup Techs don't necessarily need a language profile to be able to perform successfully in a CWO sup tech job in a Unit for example. This would negatively impact upon their ability to perform in a SPd CWO position in the school, or branch though.

Now, in these examples, I expect the member would already be on IPS, and would be quite happy to serve in their current rank until a retirement date of their choosing. But the elephant in the room is probably how do you go about doing IPS offers for a member who has opted out of career progression earlier in their career? Is an official opt-out message on their file the kiss of death for them when their file gets looked at in their 22nd and 23rd year of service?

I see this bit as being related to Performance (not potential for progression). With my current two pers, one is IPS and one is not. I do not suspect that his choice to opt out will impact any future IPS offer as his "performance" is excellent - well above others in his trade.  He may be a Cpl who opted out, but when it comes time to select who you are making IPS offers for further service to, are you choosing the meh performer or the excellent performer?  I know what my choice would be. I, personally, want to beat him with a large baseball bat as his potential would also be (if he let me formalize it dammit  ) higher than most of his peer group.  But, for now anyway - he is doing what he loves and wants to keep doing such.

My ~2001 case was a navy type; a Master Seaman.  He's still in and still a MS.  Still loving what he's doing and happy where he's at (back on a boat now).

 

[armyvern]

So you're saying that you have troops who look to you and decide  "  I definitely don't want to end up like her!"    >

          ;D

Pretty much; the troops have added a sign to my door announcing "Welcome to Mama XXXXX's Office"  --  I have done something wrong. :facepalm:

 

[Journeyman]

I have done something wrong.

It's not your fault.  You're a redheaded female; it's inevitable.  :-*

 

[medicineman]

It's kind of refreshing to see something like this - I remember the conversation I had with my RSM a few years back when I went on Compassionate - he lost his shyte and started on about how I had to worry about my career, etc...I looked at him and told him that I was 4 ranks higher than I ever thought I'd get, I was perfectly happy with my current rank and station and had no ambition beyond that.  He took it rather personally - again I pointed out that it was MY career and not his, and if he'd actually been worried about my career and not his, we wouldn't have been in the position that led to me requesting that posting in the first place.  I think if people are good techs, mechanics, etc, and want to stay that way, then they should...and also should be paid appropriately, but that's another story for another day.  As bosses, we do have to listen to our subordinates - some people will never be comfortable or happy doing admin (I fall into the latter category), so we should be able to funnel people either up or sideways depending on wishes, talents or both.  If I'd had some higher level bosses and career managers in the right places the right time actually paying attention to me, I seriously doubt I'd be a civvy right now.

MM

Edit for grammar oopie.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

So, if a member is a sack of hammers one year there will be the option to opt-out of a PER and hide what should be an adverse?

That is why both CO and member must agree - to avoid exactly that scenario

 

[Transporter]

As illustrated by some of the posts here, the sad reality is that often-times its the "best and brightest", the ones who have their collective you-know-what together, and who have thought about life and stuff beyond just what's best for their careers, are the ones who "opt-out". Conversely, some of the most career-driven people I know are exactly the ones we should all be most afraid of making higher rank.

Edit for words missing.

 

[armyvern]

As illustrated by some of the posts here, the sad reality is that often-times its the "best and brightest", the ones who have their collective you-know-what together, and who have thought about life and stuff beyond just what's best for their careers, who will "opt-out". Conversely, some of the most career-driven people I know are exactly the ones we should all be most afraid of making higher rank.

Don't misinterpret anything that I posted because I can also state that each and every one of my subordinate supervisors deserves to be in their leadership role.

Some people excel at that while others prefer to be hands-on.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with either - they are all doing what they prefer and thus have "their collective shit together" - no-one moreso than the other.

 

[Transporter]

Don't misinterpret anything that I posted because I can also state that each and every one of my subordinate supervisors deserves to be in their leadership role.

Some people excel at that while others prefer to be hands-on.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with either - they are all doing what they prefer and thus have "their collective crap together" - no-one moreso than the other.

Emphasis on "some", not all. Personally, I've already started to see indications within my MOC where the "B-Teams" at certain rank levels are starting to look pretty stacked. I don't mean to imply that there aren't plenty of folks out there who deserve every promotion they get however. 

 

[Tibbson]

I partially agree with the "first 2 years as a Cpl = no PER"; it makes sense when considered with CFAO 49-4, Annex A, Table 1 (timelines for promotion NCM) as a newly promoted Cpl needs 2 years to EPZ and be promoted MCpl.  It would *seem* to make sense to do the same for MCpl (2 years seniority to EPZ Sgt), etc.  But, I don't like the idea of people just not having any kind of assessment at all. 

Yep, 2 years as a Cpl to EPZ and be promoted to MCpl.  For most trades that means about 6 years of service in the CAF (give or take).  For trades like MP though that can mean you have people making MCpl with 2-3 years in uniform since they have bypassed the normal time as Pte.  The trade is struggling big time with that issue and has been for years now since Ptes were eliminated.  2 years of college hardly make up for 4 years in uniform but as I understand it, it was a pay issue to be competitive with civilian departments.

 

[Pusser]

Has anyone considered the problems of allowing people to stop their own career progression and plateau?  What about the people below them who do want to progress, but can't because the plateau folks are blocking all the billets at the next rank level?  I'm not sure what the state is now, but a number of years ago there was a situation amongst the MarEng Mechs where either 33% or 66% (I can't remember which) of all PO2s were career restricted (as a result of QL6 failure) and unpromotable.  This meant that promotions for MS and Below were VERY competitive and quite rare compared to other occupations.  It was sad to see keen, bright and competent MS & B being unable to progress because there were so many PO2s that could not.  Even sadder were the cases where the MS or even LS was so much brighter and more competent than his/her PO2 supervisor.  Will allowing folks to opt out of career progression create more problems?

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Has anyone considered the problems of allowing people to stop their own career progression and plateau?  What about the people below them who do want to progress, but can't because the plateau folks are blocking all the billets at the next rank level?  I'm not sure what the state is now, but a number of years ago there was a situation amongst the MarEng Mechs where either 33% or 66% (I can't remember which) of all PO2s were career restricted (as a result of QL6 failure) and unpromotable.  This meant that promotions for MS and Below were VERY competitive and quite rare compared to other occupations.  It was sad to see keen, bright and competent MS & B being unable to progress because there were so many PO2s that could not.  Even sadder were the cases where the MS or even LS was so much brighter and more competent than his/her PO2 supervisor.  Will allowing folks to opt out of career progression create more problems?

I know what you are talking about in this case but there was a little more to it where the QL6 and Cert 3 were dropped to the MS level, so yes, there was a stall in career progression but quite frankly, we still cannot fill many PO2 spots (We currently have 11 'legacy' PO2 non Cert 3 east-don't know the west number).
That said, this is the problem with allowing what is coming to be referred to as lateral progression and I don't have an answer even though I, personally am one of the biggest proponents for this in my trade mainly because of the really good people the Navy has lost as both technicians and as junior leaders. the secret is to find out how to park a number of people/positions at the LS and PO2 level. I KNOW that this is not a uniquely Mar Eng problem. There are other trades out there who do this but it doesn't tie up promotions for those wanting to carry on in the trade. I am all ears for anyone who wants to enlighten me.
There is no question though that this 'opting out' option will create these unique opportunities-the only question now is does it have potential (and we wont see this short term), to create logjams in certain trades.

 

[dapaterson]

There are mechanisms to deal with such blockages.  Review boards followed by handshakes and farewell.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

There are mechanisms to deal with such blockages.  Review boards followed by handshakes and farewell.

You need to read through all this da. The whole idea is that we need to retain these 'wrench turners' at the Cpl/LS level-They are a valuable asset and giving the golden handshake is what we are doing now...and it is costing us. I admit, there are deadbeats playing the system and we have always tackled them one at a time but those are not the individuals being referred to here.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm not talking about wrench turners (LS/MS) but rather supervisors.

If a trade is blocked at a rank level it's unhealthy.  Yo uend up without a solid experience base - rather, you get a lot of folks with a lot of experience, who leave at once and create a huge gap.  Far better to take steps to clear the blockage and ensure a constant flow - sort of like ex-Lax, to get the impacted shit moving and keeping things healthy in the long term.

 

[McG]

Not having seen anything official on this, there are still bits of the idea that are not clear.  The big question would be where it has been suggested that pers will not receive PERs that will not be seen by a merit board.  Does that mean that a first PER in rank will be the year prior to a member reaching EPZ (so that there is one PER for the board to consider) or three years prior to hitting EPZ (so that there are three PERs for the board to consider)?

Also, instead of not writing PERs for Lts, I would rather see we start making the promotions merit based.    … but that would be (and has been) a topic for another thread.

 

[stokerwes]

I tend to agree with Pat on this one. I know whom he is referring to regarding the A team. Sadly I too have seen a substantial number of personnel that just wanted to be marine engineering mechanics/technicians being forced to release because the current system was too inflexible to accommodate them. At least this proposed system is taking a step in the right direction. If people that were forced to leave the CAF, I can only relate my experiences from a Naval perspective, could have somehow remained where they were most satisfied I think it would have benefited the Navy tremendously. Let's not forget that people change with time. Maybe someone that wants to remain a mechanic or technician decides a few years later that they want to move on to a more supervisory postion. This would benefit the Navy as well as that person, that got to stay because of flexibility within the system, would able to pass on their vast knowledge to more junior positions and up the chain to superiors. 
There has to be a way to satisfy the need for trade progression while being able to retain personnel without causing progression blockages. I don't know how it could be achieved but there are a lot of people within the CAF that are a lot smarter than me that will come up with a viable solution.
As far as people abusing or playing the system that is going to happen regardless of any rules or orders that are promulgated. Some people just want to coast by in life. The majority want to be productive and contribute.
I will be looking forward to seeing if these changes actually happen. As with any changes there will be growing pains but we will all find a way to make it work.

 

[TChuki]

I despise the PER system.  One is either over rated or under rated never accurately rated.  How many times does one have to see the bell curve used to pick the pecking order.  Guys who should have had some KUDOS kicked in the teeth because they can't give that many outstanding write ups.  Or slugs who rose up because they are the commsumate bag lickers of the unit.  I see each year amongst my peers the "what did you get?  who is where on the merit list?" and seeing the infighting and morale dumping that follows.  I am sick of it.

Yes, I know I am bitching and honestly cannot offer a total better solution to this yearly disaster.

There is so much that I wanted to say, I started drafting a paragraph and just deleted. This just makes my blood boil.
I couldn't agree more with the statement above…it is that plain, simple and to the point!!!

The latest round of disappointments, embarrassments and frustration was seen the entire section of Cpl only receive 1 PDR (with the initial issued in September) for the whole fiscal year with 1 member not even getting an Initial, and watching Sgts, openly completing the write-up for the `selected` Cpl that was to head to the unit's mini board,
using last years PER in the matter of 1 hour.-done before holidays- This all without member's brag sheet and more importantly without any other Cpls brag-sheets.

 

[Tibbson]

Has anyone considered the problems of allowing people to stop their own career progression and plateau?  What about the people below them who do want to progress, but can't because the plateau folks are blocking all the billets at the next rank level? 

I agree with you however this is never an issue in any other industry, job, profession......  And yes, I know in many ways we are not just any other industry, job or profession but I really don't see people worrying at GM that they can't progress because Line Supervisor A has been in the same position for 15 years and people can't move up.  Or the Department Manager at Walmart who has been in that position for 4 years and gets told it's time to move on.  If the person in the position is competent, capable and willing to remain in that position then don't we have a responsibility to keep them employed in that position as long as we have a need for them in that position...or does that only apply to our injured members? 

Personally, I got more then a little ticked when one of the MCpls in the office told me I need to retire soon so that vacancies were created down the ranks for people to move up.  I earned my job and position and I do it well.  Nothing was automatic for me and I didn't complain when I was "stuck" at Cpl for 11 years due to no promotions way back when so others can just wait their turn as well.