Retire from CAF and entering Fed PS [Merged]

[Remius]

I'm not sure where I stand on this yet.  I whole heartedly support that members released due to service related injuries should be elevated to the statuatory priority.  I'm not as convinced that non cf related medical issues should be elevated rather than maintained at their current status.

edited to add:  Yes I believe it will create seperate classes.  Because they are seperate. A member that releases because his job injured him should be taken care of.  But someone who although possibly through no fault of there own gets injured or ill for any other reason should be treated in a different category.  They can still aplly as a priority hire just not in the higher category.  The potential for abuse is there.  I don't place the guy who had his ankle smashed as a result of jumping out of plane that his job required him to do at the same level as say the guy who ate big mac combos for 15 years and now has diabetes.

Both get released medically but both should not be on the same level.

 

[Teager]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure when VAC awards the lump sum they determine if its attributable to military service or not. The problem though is that the scale they use can be partially attributable to military service. If that's the case then there's going to be some issues.

 

[kratz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure when VAC awards the lump sum they determine if its attributable to military service or not. The problem though is that the scale they use can be partially attributable to military service. If that's the case then there's going to be some issues.

Oh my *$%#$ you implied putting faith in VAC to determin an injury to military service or not? Yup, watch the scale drop from 30% participation to 3% within two months....and the VAC manager who does gets promoted.

 

[Teager]

Oh my *$%#$ you implied putting faith in VAC to determin an injury to military service or not? Yup, watch the scale drop from 30% participation to 3% within two months....and the VAC manager who does gets promoted.

Not any faith just pointing it out and the cluster *$%# this is going to create.

 

[McG]

Military veterans' priority for PS jobs rankles union
Ex-military now top of hiring list
Kathryn May, Ottawa Citizen
04 March 2014

The Conservative government is taking another jab at public servants and shirking its responsibility for Canada's veterans by giving former members of the military a "statutory hiring preference" that allows them to leapfrog surplus bureaucrats waiting for jobs, says a union leader.

John MacLennan, president of the Union of National Defence Employees, said the hiring preferences for veterans are part of the federal government's "damage control" after the uproar over its recent closing of nine Veterans Affairs offices across the country. UNDE is among the unions under the umbrella of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which was a critical supporter of veterans in their campaign to stop the office closures.

MacLennan argued the government could find a better way to help care for veterans than pitting them against public servants who have long been supporters of the military and their service.

"It's not right. There has to be a better way to do this," MacLennan said. "It's disrespectful to public servants, topping up opportunities for veterans at the expense of public servants, and could the two clash? Yes."

The government is giving veterans statutory hiring preference as it did for vets in the First World War, Second World War and Korean War, to help them find jobs when released from the military.

This means veterans are at the top of the priority list and get the first shot at any jobs - over the surplus and laidoff public servants who have lost jobs during the Conservatives' downsizing that has so far eliminated 20,000 jobs.

Veterans also get to stay at the top of the priority list for five years, compared with two years for public servants.

The government is also planning other legislative changes so "eligible" veterans can compete for external jobs, and so that serving Canadian Forces personnel with at least three years of military service can compete for internal public service jobs. Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino is expected to offer further details on these changes in Toronto on Tuesday as he outlines new employment opportunities for veterans transitioning to civilian life.

Although some question the fairness of veterans trumping surplus public servants, the backlog of surplus and laid-off employees is one of the reasons the government made the change. Medically discharged veterans have enjoyed a "regulatory" hiring preference since 2005, which originally put them in the pecking order behind public servants who have been declared surplus, are returning from leave or have been laid off. This lower tier includes RCMP who are medically released from service, as well as surviving spouses of slain military members, reservists and other bureaucrats.

Until the cuts began, the Public Service Commission - which manages the priority list - said veterans enjoyed the highest placement rate. The setback in placing veterans came with the mushrooming backlog of surplus workers for fewer jobs as departments implemented the $5.2-billion spending cuts of the 2012 budget.

The commission was unable to say whether more veterans would find jobs with their new status since they must have the qualifications for the available jobs. The PSC's latest annual report showed more than 2,000 people on the priority list found jobs since 2012 and the majority were surplus employees.

Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent supports measures to help veterans but questioned how they will be managed, especially the fact they won't get the top preference unless it's proven their injuries are service-related. He said that suggests those who are released for non-service injuries will be relegated to a lower rung on the priority list. Parent argues all veterans should be treated the same.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Military+veterans+priority+jobs+rankles+union/9576207/story.html

 

[McG]

I still believe this bill is going in the right direction, but the CF Ombudsman has identified flaws that may introduce red-tape barriers against the successful, intended execution.  It may warrant a few amendments before passing.

Bill to bump veterans to front of federal job line flawed: ombudsman
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
CTV News
26 Jan 2015

OTTAWA -- Canada's military watchdog is worried about what it says are flaws in a bill intended to give veterans first crack at federal civil service jobs.

Bill C-27, which is currently before the Senate after passing in the House of Commons last June, gives Veterans Affairs the power to determine whether a military member's medical release is a result of service in the Canadian Forces.

Canadian Forces ombudsman Gary Walbourne says that's a determination that should be made by the Department of National Defence.

The ombudsman's office conducted an extensive analysis of the proposal, which was pushed last year as the government faced criticism for the summary dismissal of ill and injured soldiers, many of them with post-traumatic stress.

Under the existing system, all soldiers have to be considered fit to deploy both overseas and at home. Those that are considered unfit, such as the ones with physical an mental wounds from the Afghan war, are given a set amount of time to recover.

If after at point they still don't meet the universality of service rule, they are released.

In the fall of 2013, a number of troops came forward to complain they were being shown the door just shy of qualifying for their pension.

The government responded by introducing legislation to bump wounded soldiers to the front of the line for federal jobs, as long as they are qualified for the position. It may, however, have the opposite effect, said Walbourne.

National Defence, which has access to medical records and service history information, is in a better position to justify an ex-soldier's medical condition and the reason for the release, he argued.

The way the bill is written, "it could be counter-productive," Walbourne said in an interview. "There is the potential for certain releasing members to not have the right priority status -- or be delayed getting on that list."

It's not the first time the two departments and their duelling assessment systems have come under the microscope.

Many ex-soldiers, released from the military on medical grounds, have found doctors contracted by Veterans Affairs don't always agree with the assessments of military physicians. That has, in some cases, led to veterans being denied benefits and services for conditions that cost them their military jobs.

Walbourne said the same general mechanism applies in the case of priority hiring and he doesn't understand why there "needs to be a separate process.

National Defence "knows how the person has gotten hurt," he said.

"We know what happened to him. And we know whether it has happened on the job. I have a real concern. Why would we bring in another process to determine something that has already been determined?"

Walbourne's counterpart, veterans ombudsman Guy Parent, said he agrees with the findings of the assessment.

"Giving ill or injured soldiers speedier access to potential jobs in the public service is vitally important to the (Canadian Armed Forces) members and veterans," he said.

A senior government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said new Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole would study the report, noting that O'Toole is committed to "closing the seam between National Defence and Veterans Affairs."

But the official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said the legislation may have already passed the point of no return.

Allowing National Defence to be the sole authority over the release of an injured member would requiring rewriting the law governing the veterans department, something that would be a major undertaking, the official said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bill-to-bump-veterans-to-front-of-federal-job-line-flawed-ombudsman-1.2205962

 

[McG]

The Ombudsman presses his concerns with the Senate Veterans comittee.

Vets jobs bill 'defies logic,' says military ombudsman
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
Ottawa Citizen
19 Feb 2015

The military's watchdog urged the Senate on Wednesday to fix a bill intended to give wounded exsoldiers first crack at federal civil service jobs, but the Conservative government appears ready to allow it to go through as written.

Canadian Forces ombudsman Gary Walbourne says National Defence should have the power to determine if a soldier's medical release is a result of military service. Bill C-27 gives Veterans Affairs that responsibility, something Walbourne says doesn't make sense, adds unnecessary red tape and could ultimately defeat the purpose of expedited job placement.

"To have a process to determine what is already been determined, for me, just defies logic," Walbourne told the Senate's veterans affairs subcommittee, mostly populated Wednesday by Conservative members of the upper chamber.

The legislation, which gives wounded troops priority for federal jobs, deserves to be passed, said veterans ombudsman Guy Parent, who called on the committee to attach an "observation" to the bill noting the concerns of watchdogs before it comes up for a final vote.

Walbourne argued National Defence is best suited to justify why a soldier is given medical discharge, not the veterans department, which should assess only the impact of the release on an individual.

Allowing Veterans Affairs to decide whether an injury is the result of military service could take six months, delaying not only job applications, but also the distribution of benefits, Walbourne said.

What may seem like a bureaucratic squabble between departments has long been a major sore spot for ex-soldiers, some of whom were let go from the military only to find Veterans Affairs does not see their medical condition in the same way.

Kayleigh Kanoza, a spokeswoman for Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole, said the government "would like to see this bill brought into force as soon as possible," but wouldn't say if it would entertain changes at this stage. "We are committed to continuous improvement in our treatment of veterans, and look forward to seeing the Senate's study," she said in an email.

Mike Blais, of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, wonders why the government would let a flawed bill become law when two watchdogs have already sounded the alarm.

"They just want to ram it through before the election, wrap themselves in the flag and say they've done something," said Blais.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau, a former member of the military, said "If the government really wants to send a strong signal that it is listening and that it does want to make change, everybody is going to be watching Mr. O'Toole to see if anything happens."

 

[Gunplumber]

So I have applied for a bunch of PS jobs over the last year and have not been successful. I applied to one in November and in April they asked for more information and a few weeks later I was told I didn't make the cut. It was a job that I had lots of experience in both in the Military and Civilian life and I really want to contest this one as I am getting the feeling that I am not getting it as I am Military, just wanted to find out what steps I should take to complain about this?

 

[Remius]

There is a grievance process listed if you feel that you need to.

That being said, the biggest problem for a lot of military types is that they don't actually know how to apply for PS jobs.

 

[Lightguns]

Correct the process can be a trying time to navigate.  I was a month at supplying and resupplying documentation.  I was another month trying to get my security clearance established, end result I am working 4 months of 6 month term position.

 

[runormal]

There is a grievance process listed if you feel that you need to.

That being said, the biggest problem for a lot of military types is that they don't actually know how to apply for PS jobs.

When you say "How" are you saying like what to say in the interview? Put on the resume etc.

If you have secrets I'm all ears. Every time I try to fill in a gap of experience with military related experiences I always fail the question, or score poorly.

 

[Occam]

Read the competition poster several times.  Make a checklist of every essential criteria listed, and ensure you address how you meet every single one of them right in the cover letter.  If you're equating military experience to a civilian requirement, go into detail how that equivalency works.

You have to remember the initial screening process is just that - a means to reduce the sometimes massive number of resumes and cover letters received for a relatively few number of positions.  The people doing the screening may be HR people, and have nothing to do with the jobs being offered, and they're looking to do one thing - reduce the number of applicants screened through by, as quickly as possible, going through the Statement of Merit Criteria and comparing it to your cover letter/resume, and ensuring you meet every single requirement.  If they have to go looking or reading between the lines, you'll get screened out.  You have to make it easy for them to see that you've met the basic requirements.  Once you get into the screened or partially-screened pool, things go much smoother because it's the hiring manager (usually) looking at the greatly-reduced pile of files, and they can spend more time looking at resumes that catch their interest.  Screeners don't read, they just make sure you meet everything in the SOMC.

 

[Remius]

When you say "How" are you saying like what to say in the interview? Put on the resume etc.

If you have secrets I'm all ears. Every time I try to fill in a gap of experience with military related experiences I always fail the question, or score poorly.

Yes, but how you write your resume and more importantly your cover letter.  In the military we are very focussed on results.  I did X and did Y.  The PS is more interested in the process, how you did X and how you did Y.

Also note that if you do not meet the essential qualifications and demonstrate how you meet them they won't even look at you. 

I'll give you a dumb example of how a friend of mine was screened out over the fact that he did not clearly explain that he had significant experience using outlook.  He stated that he used outlook on a daily basis.  The instructions stated that he had to clearly indicate how he met the qualification by providing concrete examples.  So, fail.

One thing that might help is to copy word for word what is on the job advertisement

ie:  I have siginificant experience using XYX.  From 1999 to 2005 as the section commander for supertroop #5 I used xyx to supervise and track my subordinates.  I maintained all aspects of XYX to generate reports, track attendance and provide my manager with up to date information on my subordinates and their performance.  I was also the lead instructor on XYX on my team. 

I also always bold the essential qualifications and tell them I meet them.  It means they can see it and don't have to hunt or interpret them.

Military resumes, and MPRRs are no good.  You'll need to dumb it down and use common vernacular.  JNCO means nothing unless you explain what it is.

 

[dapaterson]

Agree with everything except

You'll need to dumb it down and use common vernacular.

I'd rather say "You need to adopt appropriate communications for your target audience."  Using terms that the person you're communicating with can understand isn't dumbing it down.

 

[Remius]

Agree with everything except
I'd rather say "You need to adopt appropriate communications for your target audience."  Using terms that the person you're communicating with can understand isn't dumbing it down.

Good point.  not what I was trying to get across. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Thank you, everyone, for your input.  It gives me pause for much thought on how I have been attempting things in the past and will go a long ways to explaining why I usually have not heard back from employers.  I need to change my angle of attack to meet with each engagement as a singular, unique opportunity to be told to F-off if I do things ham fistedly.

 

[George Wallace]

You may find this link useful:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-reservist-support/tools-resume-writing-guide.page

 

[blackberet17]

This is cut and paste advice I gave to a young lady fresh out of college on how to apply, and it's the same advice I give anyone else. Also, I will gladly proofread cover letters when I have time, to help folks out. While the c&p below it is specific to the job poster she was working on, you should get the general gist.

I've been through the proverbial wringer, and on both sides of the table, so feel free to ask.

So, what you want to demonstrate is how you meet the following ESSENTIAL qualifications, by writing them out in your cover letter:

For Education:
- Graduation with a degree from a recognized post-secondary institution with specialization in accounting, finance, business administration, commerce or economics; OR
- Eligibility for a recognized professional accounting designation (i.e., CPA).

For Experience:
- Significant* experience in at least one of the following: Accounting operations, financial analysis or financial reporting; and
- Significant* experience in extracting, compiling and analyzing financial information and preparing reports; and
- Experience in using Microsoft Office Excel and Word.

Note that "significant*" means having done tasks and activities related to those two points * above, over a two-year period. You can show this by showing how many times you did accounting operations in the run of a day/week/month, etc.

So those four points (one of the two Education, plus the three Experience) need to be well explained in your cover letter, with concrete examples (include dates, time frames, where you were working, as what, etc.).

The "will be applied/assessed at a later date" qualifications don't need to be added to your cover letter. Some selection committees will assess your ability to communicate in writing by using your cover letter, so make sure it's neat and as error free as possible. There may be a written test done at some point in the process, if they don't use your cover letter, but general that's how it is done. Oral communication will be assessed during the interview, ditto values and ethics, engagement, and strategic thinking.

The "may be applied/assessed at a later date" qualifications are the "nice to have"'s. If you have experience with any of them, write them in your cover letter, again, with concrete examples. For example, in my case, I can fill the Experience in supervision of staff, working with VAC's programs, working as a member of the Canadian Forces, and working in public sector organization, but I don't have the other two (statistical software and accounting software). Since I don't have them, I won't address them in my cover letter.

Those "may be applied/assessed at a later date" qualifications are used in the event there are two candidates at the end of all the other testing and assessments and so on, who are on an equal footing or have equal total scores. If one has the CPA designation, and the other doesn't, it **could** be the deciding factor in which of the two is offered the job.

 

[catalyst]

I'll join in and say I'd be happy to take a look at one's resume as I too have been through the wringer (four different times)....and have an educational background in vocational counselling - feel free to PM me

 

[lennoj]

As Occam pointed out you have to ensure your CV and screening question (if any) hit each and every essential qualification. Read the statement of merit/criteria. Assume those who are reading your CV are children. You really need to spell out what you did, how you did it, and it's impact. I can share my CV with you as an example.

Avoid applying for pools. Hiring managers already know who they want to hire when they establish a pool. This doesn't mean you are SOL but the odds are not in your favour. On the flip side, if you qualify in a pool as a FB-03 for example, another hiring manager from a different department or section can straight up hire you assuming the criteria for that position is similar hint: network with managers and let them know you are qualified as x and y in pool ABC.

For others who are in the release stage, get a hold of your clearance certificate and transfer it to PWGSC through some hiring agency. This will speed up the process by months!