• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Reconstitution

My thought was this would be a good opportunity to break free of the current "everybody is a rockstar, so I don't have to deal with a grievance" system we currently have. I've seen the PERs some people get, then looked at their work and wondered if their boss had ever heard of the word picture book.

If a member is working above their rank/position, they can put in the notes to cover it, down to the specific days they were in those rolls. Rather than the old system of fill in a brag sheet, and hope your boss actually reads/uses it. I have added about twice as many notes to my my name as my bosses have...

100% agreed on the whole "shipmate" thing, and the fact that MM has about the worst UI I have encountered in at least a decade.
Yeah, it's a good opportunity, but we still need to give people honest assessments based on their actual performance. That's still pretty subjective regardless of where you go, but a lot of people in the Navy are doing jobs above their rank, doing second/3rd line work on gear to keep it running, and generally managing to work daily miracles to keep the ships at sea.

If everyone working their ass off is normalized to the same scale as everyone doing the bare minimum by forcing scores to 'average' it's counterproductive, and if a trade is sitting at 60%, with ranks above it with a lot of vacancies, AWSE or otherwise lacking quals/experience, that's also a complete failure to understand context.

If I'm going to have to work above my rank, and get kicked for having a hard time for figuring things out as I go, why wouldn't I just want to work at rank and do things I know how to do well? We suck at rewarding people with AWSE pay, so that's really the only way to reward people doing new tasks 'at risk'. Similarly someone could be terrible at next rank tasks, but still be 'average' if they are capable of doing something in their current rank, so the 10k foot oversight and interference irks me. And with a lot of CoCs similarly overworked, kicking them for not using the awful UI to do individual FN points and then punishing the subordinates by knocking down their assessments as 'not justified' is also BS.

Just feel like very few people are 'set up for success' and have the time to put in the admin required for PARs while still actually meeting CAF operational demands, and the actual PACE pilot program, feedback and rollout has sucked. I don't want to get promoted so don't care for myself, but feel bad for anyone who does and deserves it as I suspect the scoring this year will be a total crapshoot based on your supervisor and unit approach, as that seems to vary massively, with no one having an idea on how to set up some QC like PERMON to at least make sure the scoring was internally consistent. Suspect there will be people inflating scoring, others deflating scoring (to force things to 'average) and others trying to score accurately, but the criteria are so nebulous in some cases it's difficult.
 
I think we would be better off getting rid of Class B and C. You're either working part time or full time. And all full time employment has the same contingencies, expectations, benefits and pay. Part time could stay as is.
The issue isn't so much part v full time - the true difference is in the word "continuing". Any reservist has periods where they work "full-time" such as courses and deployments. It's when the reserve service for an individual goes on year after year after year that we lose sight of the aim.

🍻
 
I'm not sure if this is Re-Constitution or De-Constitution, but is Operation BOHICA just around the corner? ;)


Battle looms between Canadian defence officials, decision-makers after federal budget​



A battle is brewing between Canadian defence officials and federal decision-makers as the Trudeau government looks for ways to save billions of dollars over the next few years.

Experts say last week's budget and the delays in a planned update to the defence policy are signs of this pending conflict, with ramifications for Canada's military and its international reputation.

The budget contains virtually no new defence funding, but does include several cost-cutting measures, notably an order for departments and agencies to identify ways to cut spending by three per cent over the next few years.

And while the government says the Canadian Armed Forces will be excluded from such cuts, it remains unclear the degree to which the exemption will extend to the Department of National Defence, which controls the military's budget.

"Regarding the reduction in eligible spending by departments and agencies, as indicated in Budget 2023, the reduction will not impact the Canadian Armed Forces," Finance Department spokeswoman Marie-France Faucher said in an email.

"This includes DND spending that is related to the Canadian Armed Forces."

That has left experts confused, given how intertwined the two organizations are, with much of the work of the Defence Department directly impacting military management, operations and procurement.

"I'm trying to think of what DND spending would be unrelated to the CAF," said David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute think tank and one of Canada's foremost authorities on military spending.

That confusion has been magnified by uncertainty around the Liberal government's plan to upgrade its defence policy, which was first released in 2017 and promised tens of billions in new funding for the military.

The Liberals announced the update in last year's budget and observers expected it by the fall, but it remains in limbo. Defence Minister Anita Anand recently announcing the launch of public consultations through April 30 to inform the update.

Officials across Ottawa have also been ordered to spend less on contractors, which Perry said will hit the Defence Department hard since it is one of the largest users of outside firms for the provision of engineering, logistical and management services.

That includes helping with the procurement of new military equipment.

All of this comes at a time when the government is facing pressure to put more money into other priorities, including health and dental care, clean energy and social programs for Canadians who are struggling -- while trying to keep spending under control.

Defence and military officials might be crossing their fingers that they will be saved from having to cut, said Canadian Forces College professor emeritus Craig Stone, another national authority on defence spending.

"But I cannot see the town agreeing to everyone else having to come up with three per cent and DND not," he said. "Just when you think about it, it's the largest discretionary spending bit for government."

The Defence Department's roughly $27-billion budget is not the largest in the federal government, but most of the others are required to spend the money on services and benefits to Canadians and other levels of government.

That doesn't mean defence spending is set to fall overall, as the government has promised to spend billions of additional dollars over the next few years on new fighter jets, warships, radar systems and other high-priced equipment.

Experts say it simply won't increase as much as previously expected, even though Canada's allies are pushing for the opposite.

The budget document says spending by the Defence Department will reach nearly $40 billion by 2026-27 as a result of those additional investments, but the government is not saying what that means as a share of Canada's gross domestic product.

Officials last year said the provisions in the 2022 federal budget would leave spending at 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2027.

That represents an increase over the 1.29 per cent last year, but will leave Canada far short of the two per cent target established by NATO allies -- and potentially heading the other way, depending on the cuts to the Defence Department.

Retired lieutenant-general Guy Thibault, head of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute think tank, said it suggests the Liberal government has different priorities -- and a willingness to accept the risks of not doing more for the military.

"It is obvious in the aftermath of (U.S. President Joe Biden's) visit and the messaging in this budget that the prime minister, deputy prime minister or cabinet are not convinced that more investments in defence will result in greater influence with the U.S. or allies," he said.

"And obviously they do not truly believe in the threats we are facing. This is simply a continuation of historical government practice of accepting the risk and spending the least amount on defence as they can possibly get away with."

I want to call it, Operation PROLAPSE, "When the bottom finally fell out!" 😁

It is pretty common in the officer side of the Log Branch that one writes their own message, at least partially. Though, I have no doubt that any off brand messaging would be removed

I was quite happy to be in a non-log unit when I retired so I could just fade away
Fading away was the best feeling ever! My release was hilarious, I showed up to sign my paperwork in a moving truck and then drove right to the Ferry Dock on Van Isle 😎.

People still thought I was working right up until the very end 😄

No DwD for me, the CoC actually did ask me about a week before I was done.... "oh yah, we need to plan you a DwD"

My response was: "Don't bother, it's too late and I got a lot of other stuff going on right now"


I had my own DwD with my buddies and got drunk in one of their backyards LOL.
 
My issue on that email was that they want the normal on PARs to be average, vice having the 50% point be 'met the standard', but the tone of that email did seem like it was drafted by an engineer (that failed stats). I mostly laughed and then deleted it, but the whole 'shipmate' bit seems a lot more forced from some then others.

With the number of people working above rank, covering multiple jobs etc, it should be easy to justify performance above the standard in a lot of the 150ish points. Similarly being an average performer in an HR unit stacked with high performers likely means your actual performance is higher than the brightest light in a 'island of misfit toys' unit where we hide useless people, and then there is the fact on whether any unit actually has a 'statistically significant sample size' for any trade/rank for a normal curve to even be relevant. I get the feeling PARs/FNs will be much more work in practice than PERs/div notes, but a lot of that is down to the homebrew/VBasic nature of MM which uses a GUI from windows 3.1 with Rube goldbergian workflows that lack the fun aspect. If I was missing half the CoC above me, covering off a few jobs I had no training in, and scored 'average' or 'below average' I would grieve the heck out of it, as we systematically set up people to struggle so even moderate success is an achievement.

Also 'Mission first, people always' is frankly a stupid and confusing slogan, so take the mickey there where ever I can.

I think there is a happy medium. I have observed lots of folks ticket punching and getting right justified without actually doing anything. We did truly abuse the CFPAS.

We need to honest with ourselves and our people.

Shipmates and Missing First, People Always; ya that's getting long in the tooth.

I had my own DwD with my buddies and got drunk in one of their backyards LOL.

Sounds about what I would like. Fire, drinks, food and most importantly family and friends.

But then again my wife has strict instructions for my Irish Wake when I leave this world too lol.
 
Sumer Block Leave is 5 weeks at best.
There is no reason that PRes training can’t be accomplished by Reg F personnel with staggered block leaves.
Due to other commitments a Bde doesn’t go on leave at the same period anyway.
And yet I've been told "don't get too comfortable, we are trying to cancel your course so we can go in block leave" mind that was 9 years ago but still.
 
Guarantee that number's not reflecting folks whose medical issues have rendered them incapable of deploying.

Plus the folks with reoccurring MELs or other undocumented issues who take up spots in units but are otherwise unemployable in their trades for extended periods of time. When you actually break down the numbers, that 16,000 is probably double.
 
Sumer Block Leave is 5 weeks at best.
There is no reason that PRes training can’t be accomplished by Reg F personnel with staggered block leaves.
Due to other commitments a Bde doesn’t go on leave at the same period anyway.

The inconvenient truth is that, with a little bit of the right kind of leadership, the ARes could run much of its own training. It's something they're actually really good at, and enjoy doing.

With the current number of Class B positions in a reserve CBG HQ and the units (there must be 100 or so FFS) for example, you could generate some pretty solid training capacity IMHO.
 
Most unit class B are clerks. Not trainers. Administrators.

ARes ignores admin and fails because of it. Stop expecting clerks to do everything except administration.
 
And yet I've been told "don't get too comfortable, we are trying to cancel your course so we can go in block leave" mind that was 9 years ago but still.

You know, people need to have their leave. And yes, I prioritize RegF leave over an ARes course.

The inconvenient truth is that, with a little bit of the right kind of leadership, the ARes could run much of its own training. It's something they're actually really good at, and enjoy doing.

With the current number of Class B positions in a reserve CBG HQ and the units (there must be 100 or so FFS) for example, you could generate some pretty solid training capacity IMHO.

You stop that! I've talked to you before about narrative.

Most unit class B are clerks. Not trainers. Administrators.

ARes ignores admin and fails because of it. Stop expecting clerks to do everything except administration.

Again your input differs greatly from my current observations.
 
Most unit class B are clerks. Not trainers. Administrators.

ARes ignores admin and fails because of it. Stop expecting clerks to do everything except administration.
Or…stay with me here…we could hire civilian employees to staff unit orderly rooms that have no expectation of ever deploying, thus freeing up scarce mil PYs to do more military things…
 
Or…stay with me here…we could hire civilian employees to staff unit orderly rooms that have no expectation of ever deploying, thus freeing up scare mil PYs to do more military things…
Already been suggested. Shot down by higher.
 
Already been suggested. Shot down by higher.
Why because it makes sense? CBG HQ has four or so Public Service secretary/clk/IT positions.
 
You know, people need to have their leave. And yes, I prioritize RegF leave over an ARes course.



You stop that! I've talked to you before about narrative.



Again your input differs greatly from my current observations.
My unit has 1 Inf Sgt the RQ. One cpl supply tech on short term class b. The rest are clerks. Only one of those is qualified to instruct.

Then we have 3 RSS.

Everyone except the clerks get tasked.

When I was that Sgt in the RQ I think I spent half of my time doing that job and half being tasked on courses and such.
 
Most unit class B are clerks. Not trainers. Administrators.

ARes ignores admin and fails because of it. Stop expecting clerks to do everything except administration.

So we automate/streamline/adjourn the admin processes and free up Class B positions to apply to training and other value added activities...

... kind of like millions of other corporations have been doing since the 80s.

But yeah, it's that leadership thing again ;)
 
Why because it makes sense? CBG HQ has four or so Public Service secretary/clk/IT positions.
In fact the proposition was actually to hire the current clks on class B into PS positions to start. Meaning they would work daytime as Civies and could work evenings and weekends as reservists thus getting paid for that time.
 
My unit has 1 Inf Sgt the RQ. One cpl supply tech on short term class b. The rest are clerks. Only one of those is qualified to instruct.

Then we have 3 RSS.

Everyone except the clerks get tasked.

When I was that Sgt in the RQ I think I spent half of my time doing that job and half being tasked on courses and such.

There is a massive problem with overloading RQs with secondary tasks. The demands of the CFSS and Material Accounting are now such that RQs should be concentrating on Supply, and I would argue should be MMTs. But that we cant do, yet.

Its a whole different world out here with regard to Class B then.
 
In fact the proposition was actually to hire the current clks on class B into PS positions to start. Meaning they would work daytime as Civies and could work evenings and weekends as reservists thus getting paid for that time.
Hmmm…interesting.

Or we could also reduce the stupid and mostly unnecessary amount of admin we do by way of an end to end review of all of our processes…
 
Back
Top