Reconstitution

[daftandbarmy]

The ARes admin system isn’t something that is easy or simple to simplify. Just using pay as a simple example its based off half days and full days. There is fin codes attached to every pay sheet for different reasons. Different people attend different events, so every pay sheet is unique. When stuff is unique you have to manually modify for it. Automation works great with a bunch of the same.

This is (only one) great example of laughably appalling inefficiencies that seem to be tolerated in the CAF, decades after similar paper based 'efficiency crimes' have been ruthlessly rooted out by other public and private sector organizations.

 

[Furniture]

I ummm didn't see this as an argument. I thought @Remius and I were having a good conversation...

I should have used discussion, I was distracted thinking about my French course... My point stands though, the basis of the discussion is an anecdote.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Everyone keeps saying everything will be covered on work up. Training keeps getting cut back because ‘someone else’ will cover it. What if that never happens? At the end if the day it is weak line which costs lives if the military ends up in a war. Every bit of training someone receives is ‘work up’. It is always better to over train and create competent capable soldiers than undertrain and have cannon fodder, or has Ukraine not shown us the folly of not training effectively yet?

In war you dont have time to take years to train someone. Think of it this way, the ARes is already worlds ahead in a war time scenario.

 

[Furniture]

Everyone keeps saying everything will be covered on work up. Training keeps getting cut back because ‘someone else’ will cover it. What if that never happens? At the end if the day it is weak line which costs lives if the military ends up in a war. Every bit of training someone receives is ‘work up’. It is always better to over train and create competent capable soldiers than undertrain and have cannon fodder, or has Ukraine not shown us the folly of not training effectively yet?

The problem with front loading all the training "just in case" is that it creates courses that are too unwieldly to train, and people lose everything they learned because they don't use it.

My occupation restructured back in '08, and took a bunch of skills and dumped them in the DP1. The basic occupation training went from two months to near six, with a near six month long "OJT" at the JMC in Gagetown after the course. Now we train less people, over a longer time, and they come out of the end of a year of training less well prepared to do their actual job than before with the shorter course.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The problem with front loading all the training "just in case" is that it creates courses that are too unwieldly to train, and people lose everything they learned because they don't use it.

My occupation restructured back in '08, and took a bunch of skills and dumped them in the DP1. The basic occupation training went from two months to near six, with a near six month long "OJT" at the JMC in Gagetown after the course. Now we train less people, over a longer time, and they come out of the end of a year of training less well prepared to do their actual job than before with the shorter course.

Speaking only for my own trade, I would get ride of the QL3 Apprentice course.

Make it all OJT. Then a longer consolidation course (QL 5 Journeyman), followed by a deployed logistics/sustainment course (QL 6) and ending in a QL 7 that prepares the MWO/CPO2 to lead Logistics at the CSM/Div CPO level.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The problem with front loading all the training "just in case" is that it creates courses that are too unwieldly to train, and people lose everything they learned because they don't use it.

My occupation restructured back in '08, and took a bunch of skills and dumped them in the DP1. The basic occupation training went from two months to near six, with a near six month long "OJT" at the JMC in Gagetown after the course. Now we train less people, over a longer time, and they come out of the end of a year of training less well prepared to do their actual job than before with the shorter course.

Great point. I think we do better, in general, getting people some basic level understanding of their occupation and out into the world to learn on the job faster, then we do to ever increase course lengths: because, reasons.

That takes a QS board chair to really know the JTAR/JBOS and to really understand training delivery.

Sadly, that appears to be in short supply lately.

 

[Remius]

Withholding leave is not a normal maneuver. I guess you could argue prescribed block leave periods is a type of withholding leave, but not the same as this is talking about. I have rarely seen anyone's individual annual leave request withheld, in fact I cant think of one example.

Maybe we are defining it differently. I see it as leave you are entitled to take but approval or denial is based on operational requirements. Like working on a stat holiday or being told you can’t take leave during a specified time.

Its important as well to read further in the QR&O (Thank you @dapaterson ) that the word "imperative" is used. Can you think of an example of an ARes course that has that "imperative" factor ?

I did. And if you read up you’ll see where I pointed it out and how it only applies to recall and not withholding.

I think you've had some "reserve-isims" inflicted on you or you're talking about your civi job, because we don't F with peoples leave unless something operational (ex SAR tasking) comes up.

Nope. I’ve been in reg force units on class B where this has happened. Assuming we are defining the same way. There is no definition for approval or denial. Only granting and withholding. I am looking at it like that as written. If not then we are discussing something else.

Because COs are the ones who will decide to recall/withhold leave. A HHQ Commander will task COs, COs will decide who they need to do the job and if needed adjust leave.

Not really. Our CBG warned off all our FTUC that they will tasked this summer. Sure the CO will sign off but the direction comes from higher. Trust me my CO and the ones before him would love to keep all our FTUC in location and not send them anywhere. So no, the CO can’t just decide who goes and who stays because the we don’t have the depth to do that. What happens is the FTUC guy goes and we hope a class A guy can cover.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Maybe we are defining it differently. I see it as leave you are entitled to take but approval or denial is based on operational requirements. Like working on a stat holiday or being told you can’t take leave during a specified time.

Withholding of leave can also include annual leave that a unit denies to process or cancels. I suppose you could include working on a stat, but we almost always try to make that up to the member. I've worked many a stat day, and I've always been compensated for it. Minus deployments. I've never been butt hurt over that.

I did. And if you read up you’ll see where I pointed it out and how it only applies to recall and not withholding.

And I can tell you that is interpreted as the same standard for withholding, out side prescribed operationally reasoned block leave periods.

That word imperative is ummm, imperative.

Nope. I’ve been in reg force units on class B where this has happened. Assuming we are defining the same way. There is no definition for approval or denial. Only granting and withholding. I am looking at it like that as written. If not then we are discussing something else.

Well I've been doing this a long time and in a lot of different places and uniforms, and I have never experienced it. The exception being block leave periods and unit tempo. "We're sailing from 1 Feb to 15 Mar, no you cant take leave then". But now, even then they will be looked at and if we can spare and backfill, if required, we will. A good example of an approved pass would be a wedding, lets say, where the member had made financial commitments before the schedule was released, and even if they knew the sked, we will still look at it. Generally, with planning we try not deny/withhold leave.

Not really. Our CBG warned off all our FTUC that they will tasked this summer. Sure the CO will sign off but the direction comes from higher. Trust me my CO and the ones before him would love to keep all our FTUC in location and not send them anywhere. So no, the CO can’t just decide who goes and who stays because the we don’t have the depth to do that. What happens is the FTUC guy goes and we hope a class A guy can cover.

And your CO retains the right to tell the CBG HQ that pers X,Y,Z are required to stay behind for reasons A,B,C. COs are very very powerful people. Your COs manage their units, and they can no fill CFTPOs. CBGs simply task, and look sideways when COs say, No! And then they look elsewhere.

We're going through it right now with an MMT QL5 the CBG wants to run this year. We have zero MMTs of the 37 (Me included) MMTs in the CBG who are available (willing) to teach the courses (some of that number obviously would be students themselves). So we went to 5 Div and MARLANT, MARLANT said no, 5 Div is still looking. This is all COs telling HHQs, no.

Now maybe your CBG has a bunch of COs who just say yes and don't care about asking their people what's going on in their lives, I don't know.

 

[Remius]

Withholding of leave can also include annual leave that a unit denies to process or cancels. I suppose you could include working on a stat, but we almost always try to make that up to the member. I've worked many a stat day, and I've always been compensated for it. Minus deployments. I've never been butt hurt over that.

Absolutely. But withholding leave does not mean losing leave entitlements or not being entitled to compensation for it. It is made up somewhere somehow. I’ve worked stat, and specific times of the year like year end or when certain work surges happen leave will not be entertained. Most of the time there are exceptions and case by case.

And I can tell you that is interpreted as the same standard for withholding, out side prescribed operationally reasoned block leave periods.

That word imperative is ummm, imperative.

Not supported in the regulations. Applies to sub para 2 not sub para 1.

Also Imperative Military requirements is very broad. The “not limited to” catch all is there. Also note that define what isn’t IMR

IMR include, but are not limited to:

• participating in an operational deployment or major military exercise;
• participating in an unforecasted tasking;
• attending a career course;
• attending a court martial; or
• posting or attached posting (including any action related to it, such as HHT, out-clearances, travelling time, Special Leave (Relocation))

IMR do not include:

• recalling a member from sick leave to take annual leave;
• recalling a member from LWOP to take annual leave;
• recalling a member from leave for an annual medical/dental exam; or
• recalling a member for performing routine personal administrative issues such as, but not limited to, PER interviews, testing or parades.

Well I've been doing this a long time and in a lot of different places and uniforms, and I have never experienced it. The exception being block leave periods and unit tempo. "We're sailing from 1 Feb to 15 Mar, no you cant take leave then". But now, even then they will be looked at and if we can spare and backfill, if required, we will. A good example of an approved pass would be a wedding, lets say, where the member had made financial commitments before the schedule was released, and even if they knew the sked, we will still look at it. Generally, with planning we try not deny/withhold leave.

It happened routinely to me in recruiting. Most of the time it started with and ask as opposed to an order. Leave limitations on certain times of the year etc. We aren’t disagreeing here.

And your CO retains the right to tell the CBG HQ that pers X,Y,Z are required to stay behind for reasons A,B,C. COs are very very powerful people. Your COs manage their units, and they can no fill CFTPOs. CBGs simply task, and look sideways when COs say, No! And then they look elsewhere.

He can and does, but even unit COs answer to someone. CBGs don’t simply task and no they don’t always look elsewhere. That works when you have class A types that they try to task. When they can’t they order FTUC to fill. Happens a lot here. Oh and no fill? Cool no candidates for you. It happens.

We're going through it right now with an MMT QL5 the CBG wants to run this year. We have zero MMTs of the 37 (Me included) MMTs in the CBG who are available (willing) to teach the courses (some of that number obviously would be students themselves). So we went to 5 Div and MARLANT, MARLANT said no, 5 Div is still looking. This is all COs telling HHQs, no.

See my post above. We no fill a lot of garbage that comes our way but when it comes to specific courses and training orders come down and or threats to not load any of our pers happen. Pay to play.

Now maybe your CBG has a bunch of COs who just say yes and don't care about asking their people what's going on in their lives, I don't know.

Correct you don’t know. It’s quite the opposite.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Absolutely. But withholding leave does not mean losing leave entitlements or not being entitled to compensation for it. It is made up somewhere somehow. I’ve worked stat, and specific times of the year like year end or when certain work surges happen leave will not be entertained. Most of the time there are exceptions and case by case.

There are ways to forfeit/stoppage of leave as punishment, but that's not what were talking about here.

Other than that I think we are in violent agreement.

Not supported in the regulations. Applies to sub para 2 not sub para 1.

Also Imperative Military requirements is very broad. The “not limited to” catch all is there. Also note that define what isn’t IMR

IMR include, but are not limited to:

• participating in an operational deployment or major military exercise;
• participating in an unforecasted tasking;
• attending a career course;
• attending a court martial; or
• posting or attached posting (including any action related to it, such as HHT, out-clearances, travelling time, Special Leave (Relocation))

IMR do not include:

• recalling a member from sick leave to take annual leave;
• recalling a member from LWOP to take annual leave;
• recalling a member from leave for an annual medical/dental exam; or
• recalling a member for performing routine personal administrative issues such as, but not limited to, PER interviews, testing or parades.

Again I think we are in violent agreement. And Ack the "not limited to" the task is to weight the case by case against the provided examples. And see if equivalency can be found or justified. And that is left to COs to judge.

It happened routinely to me in recruiting. Most of the time it started with and ask as opposed to an order. Leave limitations on certain times of the year etc. We aren’t disagreeing here.

He can and does, but even unit COs answer to someone. CBGs don’t simply task and no they don’t always look elsewhere. That works when you have class A types that they try to task. When they can’t they order FTUC to fill. Happens a lot here. Oh and no fill? Cool no candidates for you. It happens.

So if the CBG HQ wants order FTUC folks to fill positions, and push the CO against their advice, then the CO of the losing units should be pushing a formal and written risk mitigation off on the CBG Commander so when the day to day of the unit goes lapse and Div and Army start wondering why their unit sucks they can show why.

See my post above. We no fill a lot of garbage that comes our way but when it comes to specific courses and training orders come down and or threats to not load any of our pers happen. Pay to play.

Ah yes more reserve-isims. Make soldier X teach course Y, or else.

Maybe the RegF really should be responsible to training the ARes, might remove some of this political BS.

It really is sad, sorry you have to experience that.

 

[Remius]

There are ways to forfeit/stoppage of leave as punishment, but that's not what were talking about here.

Other than that I think we are in violent agreement.



Again I think we are in violent agreement. And Ack the "not limited to" the task is to weight the case by case against the provided examples. And see if equivalency can be found or justified. And that is left to COs to judge.



So if the CBG HQ wants order FTUC folks to fill positions, and push the CO against their advice, then the CO of the losing units should be pushing a formal and written risk mitigation off on the CBG Commander so when the day to day of the unit goes lapse and Div and Army start wondering why their unit sucks they can show why.

They do. Happens all the time. And FYI the CBGs get pushed by DIV a lot. At least here they do. One of the biggest beefs COs in my brigade have almost unanimously is tasking FTUC away from the units.

Ah yes more reserve-isims. Make soldier X teach course Y, or else.

More like only applies to reserves. I’ve seen reg force orgs use that caveat in order to send reserve candidates on certain courses.

Maybe the RegF really should be responsible to training the ARes, might remove some of this political BS.

Maybe. But the political BS we get from higher won’t change. It’s reg force heavy.

It really is sad, sorry you have to experience that.

I’ll send you a PM about this stuff. It’ll only pollute the thread.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Now maybe your CBG has a bunch of COs who just say yes and don't care about asking their people what's going on in their lives, I don't know.

Sadly, this was the norm as I recall.

There's nothing like slavishly passing down orders from on high to make you look good so your (all important, part time, Reservist) career can progress quickly!

 

[MilEME09]

See my post above. We no fill a lot of garbage that comes our way but when it comes to specific courses and training orders come down and or threats to not load any of our pers happen. Pay to play.

.

I'm actually teaching a PLQ right now that if I didn't volunteer for, they told us our candidates would be kicked off from the unit. Sadly this is common, and it leads to burn out, and members who stop caring to volunteer to teach.

 

[Furniture]

I'm actually teaching a PLQ right now that if I didn't volunteer for, they told us our candidates would be kicked off from the unit. Sadly this is common, and it leads to burn out, and members who stop caring to volunteer to teach.

That's a ResF self-inflicted issue.

 

[Remius]

That's a ResF self-inflicted issue.

Not disagreeing. But…

Take the montreal area units. A good chunk of their instructor qualified types are on class B at St Jean. Instructing there. If the brigade there could have a real school to run their own courses and staff them with class Bs it would likely fix the problem. But we know that won’t happen because it won’t be allowed to happen.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not disagreeing. But…

Take the montreal area units. A good chunk of their instructor qualified types are on class B at St Jean. Instructing there. If the brigade there could have a real school to run their own courses and staff them with class Bs it would likely fix the problem. But we know that won’t happen because it won’t be allowed to happen.

I think you'd be surprised. That is a good idea.

Look at what we're trying in the Navy by essentially bringing back YTEP. Looks to me like we are trying just about anything.

 

[Furniture]

Not disagreeing. But…

Take the montreal area units. A good chunk of their instructor qualified types are on class B at St Jean. Instructing there. If the brigade there could have a real school to run their own courses and staff them with class Bs it would likely fix the problem. But we know that won’t happen because it won’t be allowed to happen.

Two points:

1) Why is it that reservists choose the stability of Class B at CFLRS over Class B at the brigade?

2) the priorities for the GoC/CAF are right in the names... One is the Regular Force, the other is the Reserve Force.

re·serve
noun
1) a supply of a commodity not needed for immediate use but available if required.

​

"Australia has major coal, gas, and uranium reserves"

​

2) a force or body of troops kept back from action to reinforce or protect others, or additional to the regular forces and available in an emergency.

​

"the men were stationed as a central reserve ready to be transported wherever necessary"

The RegF is short 6800 people, not counting the people on BTL/ATL/MELs. While I sympathize with the ResF, the reality is they will always be the second to the RegF. In your example, the RegF training conducted at CFLRS is a higher priority for both the GoC and CAF, so more money/effort will be spent there.

 

[Remius]

I think you'd be surprised. That is a good idea.

Look at what we're trying in the Navy by essentially bringing back YTEP. Looks to me like we are trying just about anything.

I’m not surprised to be honest. We’ve tried here. Even duck tape tried. The issue is the work required to get that sort of thing off the ground to get it done right. And a lot of that is outside our control. We can ask but the answer is no for a variety of reasons.


The NAVY does things I would love to adopt. The problem is we sometimes have too much army in the army.

There are no shortages of good ideas or will.

 

[Remius]

Two points:

1) Why is it that reservists choose the stability of Class B at CFLRS over Class B at the brigade?

Depends on the number of class Bs at both places. I doubt the brigade there is critically short. And I bet if they were allowed to create a full time instructor cadre with a facility they would likely fill that with no issues. But the answer will be no.

2) the priorities for the GoC/CAF are right in the names... One is the Regular Force, the other is the Reserve Force.

re·serve
noun
1) a supply of a commodity not needed for immediate use but available if required.

​

"Australia has major coal, gas, and uranium reserves"

​

2) a force or body of troops kept back from action to reinforce or protect others, or additional to the regular forces and available in an emergency.

​

"the men were stationed as a central reserve ready to be transported wherever necessary"

The RegF is short 6800 people, not counting the people on BTL/ATL/MELs. While I sympathize with the ResF, the reality is they will always be the second to the RegF. In your example, the RegF training conducted at CFLRS is a higher priority for both the GoC and CAF, so more money/effort will be spent there.

Again not disagreeing. But the reg force is addicted to Class Bs. I’ve said it before. It’s a drug.

Sounds like the reg force I has its own self inflicted issues then too no?

The reliance on long term class B for what should be reg force has made things worse for decades. It’s a band aid solution they have never adressed and now can’t do without.

 

[Furniture]

Depends on the number of class Bs at both places. I doubt the brigade there is critically short. And I bet if they were allowed to create a full time instructor cadre with a facility they would likely fill that with no issues. But the answer will be no.

I suspect that's a ResF issue, and if there is will to do it, something else will likely need to be cut.

Again not disagreeing. But the reg force is addicted to Class Bs. I’ve said it before. It’s a drug.

Sounds like the reg force I has its own self inflicted issues then too no?

The reliance on long term class B for what should be reg force has made things worse for decades. It’s a band aid solution they have never adressed and now can’t do without.

100% it's a RegF issue, we have too many administrivia jobs, and can't do them all with RegF people.

The location of CFLRS also screws the RegF. Most anglophones don't want to move their anglophone families to Quebec, to pay higher taxes, not have employment opportunities for spouses, and work longer hours... You couldn't intentionally make it a worse place to get posted.