I agree, however, usually in the reconstitution phase; resources are reallocated or brought up if depleted. A lot of ADREPs go in and if that platoon has lost pers to death or injury, they're reinforced if theyre the main effort.
This is a complete pile of garbage. A CAF member is either able to function at 100%, take a trench, and machine gun a bad guy in the face, or they’re of no further conceivable use to the institution. If they can’t actually put their decades of knowledge, skills, training, and expertise into use personally, what possible benefit could CAF have from any further leveraging of what they know? Why would CAF retain banged up members to instruct, repair, or administer when they could instead task fully operational people on TD from elsewhere in the country to do those classroom, desk or workshop jobs instead?Well this may help some - http://vcds.mil.ca/apps/canforgens/default-eng.asp?id=116-24&type=canforgen
Some points from the defense team release:
IREM is out and effective 2 Apr 2025. Wonder why that date?
To be eligible for an IREM, CAF members must:
While on an IREM, CAF members do not have to meet the FORCE/Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation requirements.
- Be part of the Regular Force or the Primary Reserves;
- Have reached Operational Functional Point in their currently assigned occupation;
- Perform military duties at an assigned workplace unless identified as an employment limitation, and during hours normally expected from a Regular Force or the Primary Reserve member;
- Have valid Terms of Service (TOS) for continued employment, noting there may be a requirement to renew the TOS and that the IREM will not extend beyond the compulsory retirement age of 60;
- Be within an occupation experiencing a critical shortage, or one in which the Commanding Officer (CO) identifies a requirement for a specific skill set;
- Maintain an expected standard of conduct and performance that will not lead to an earlier or immediate release; and
- Be recommended by their CO.
Further career implications for members on an IREM should be considered. The IREM may be approved on a case-by-case basis for a three-year period. Members who are eligible for IREM may continue to receive posting instructions to meet the needs of the CAF and are not eligible for promotions or career courses.
In the Mil Pers Instr http://cmp-cpm.mil.ca/assets/CMP_In...interim-reconstitution-employment-measure.pdf it also states:
3. Career Implications
3.1 General
The IREM career implications are:
CF Mil Pers Instr 03/24 Interim Reconstitution Employment Measure
a. The Reg F members will remain subject to postings to meet the needs of the CAF or to be gainfully employed;
b. CAF members serving on an IREM will not be eligible for career courses;
c. CAF members on an IREM will serve in their substantive rank and will not be eligible for promotions or granted an acting while so employed (AWSE) rank or appointment. Members who were previously granted an AWSE rank must cease to fill the position (see note) for which the AWSE rank was granted, prior to commencing an IREM. CAF members holding acting lacking (AL) rank will retain their AL rank;
d. Upon medical release, a CAF member is only eligible to be considered for a sub-component transfer to the Canadian Rangers (CR) or the Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS);
e. Remote work, applicable only to Reg F members, will be in accordance with CF Mil Pers Instr 01/22, Changing a Place of Duty and the Use of Postings to Enable Remote Work Options;
f. Members will remain subject to all CAF applicable regulations, policies, orders, instructions, and directives;
g. While on an IREM, CAF members will not be required to complete the FORCE Evaluation or the CMTFE; and
h. While on an IREM, CAF members will Opt-Out from the annual appraisal system as described in CF Mil Pers Instr 01/23, Performance and Competency Evaluation (PaCE).
Interim Recondition Employment Measure.IREM?
Interim Reconstitution Employment Measure which is essentially a new way to allow folks with medical conditions that breach UoS/Trade medical standards that would have been released to remain employed for up to three years. The previous system of accommodation for period of retention was being relooked at as it weakened the bona fide argument for UofS. That system didn't allow folks to remain beyond 01 Apr 2025 which is why the 2 Apr 25 date is probably chosen for that reason.IREM?
I would be interested to see the actual stats on medically accommodated folks. It is being touted as roughly 1% of the CAF in various docs I have seen. Which if true while losing them sucks, the follow on question is it a game changer for the CAF? Probably helps some distressed trades and places but my experience with accommodated folks is a mixed bag of good and bad. I am pretty agnostic though, we survived for years giving 3 year retention periods so my opinion is this won't really help or hinder the CAF much
meh is a more restricted policy than the older one in some ways but essentially the same way we have been operating for years on this front.I think this describes the new policy quite nicely
I'm sure increasing the tasks for already overtasked healthy people would work well... can't see any possibility of that speeding up the death spiral.
Ok, but my raging sarcasm aside- this is about keeping people in distressed trades, who would otherwise have been discarded entirely and blown off to be a VAC problem. Why not retain people who can teach, administer etc if you can’t fill that trade anyway? Nothing I’m seeing here changes the balance of ‘healthy members/tasks’.
The old system of retention had to go because it jeopardized our UoS exemption from the charter. The new system is clearly labeled an "interim" system, with a planned end and tighter controls on who qualifies.
That’s reasonable though, for the reasons you describe.
That reminds me though when I retired in 2009, I thought that the number of civil servants that I knew of on "stress leave" seemed pretty high. I'm not thinking of veteran PTSD here, I'm thinking civil servants in cubicles. How's that going these days?
Too Much of a Good Thing? The Armed Forces' "Can-Do" Culture
Our 'Can Do' Defence is simultaneously trying to do too much while not achieving enough. Is the solution to do less? This author believes so.wavellroom.com
Not great where I'm at. Lots of pers, both uniformed and not, who are on various accommodations. Many work less than 3 days a week if that. OT "Work from Home" yet never answer Teams or respond to emails for days.I've always been cognisant of the UoS provisions and the conflicting CHRC and Charter challenges to that. I always thought that UoS was one of those self evident things but give a bunch of legislative draftsmen and some lawyers a minute and they can set common sense on its head.
At the same time being able to keep wounded veterans or even veterans that DND has simply invested time and money on available to the system without undermining UoS would also be of value. I would have thought of some time of transfer system to the Civil Service with flow through benefits wouldn't be impossible to make happen. Whether they are employed back with DND or elsewhere is immaterial.
That reminds me though when I retired in 2009, I thought that the number of civil servants that I knew of on "stress leave" seemed pretty high. I'm not thinking of veteran PTSD here, I'm thinking civil servants in cubicles. How's that going these days?
